Front-page attack in New York Times says BDS movement is driven by minorities’ ‘hostility toward Jews’

The New York Times has published an important front-page attack on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement on campus. The long article asserts that BDS is allied with anti-Semitism, beginning with its title, “Campus Debates on Israel Drive a Wedge Between Jews and Minorities.”

The heart of the article is the claim that BDS is exploiting resentment on the part of disenfranchised minorities toward privileged Jews to push its cause (Palestinian solidarity), but it is only stirring up anti-Semitic rancor and will achieve nothing.

Reporters Jennifer Medina and Tamar Lewin ignore all the Jews who support BDS, as the most powerful newspaper in the country seeks to frame BDS as a “hostile” force. The piece is important because it reflects the growing success of the BDS movement. To quote a favorite line among BDS supporters: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Well, the Times is fighting BDS.

Let me quote a few lines from the piece that convey the mood of fear and even persecution. The main claim is that the BDS movement is led by darkskinned people who are angry at Jews:

College activists favoring divestment have cast the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a powerful force’s oppression of a displaced group, and have formed alliances with black, Latino, Asian, Native American, feminist and gay rights organizations on campus. The coalitions — which explicitly link the Palestinian cause to issues like police brutality, immigration and gay rights — have caught many longtime Jewish leaders off guard, particularly because they belonged to such progressive coalitions less than a generation ago.

The writers give no time to BDS’s actual goals — equal rights for Jews and Palestinians — or to Palestinian conditions under occupation, but say BDS is trying to “punish” Israel:

The movement’s goal is to isolate and punish Israel for its policies toward Palestinians and its occupation of the West Bank.

Actually, many support BDS because it is at last holding Israel accountable for human rights atrocities, including those in Gaza.

Photo of UCLA students at Israeli independence day that accompanied piece in NYT on BDS. By Monica Almeida

The piece is topped by the photo above of huddled Jewish students with their backs turned, and draped in Zionist regalia, which suggests they are afraid. And well they should be; several statements in the article make the claim that anti-semitism is driving the movement:

college officials are grappling with where to draw the line between opposition to Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza — a position shared by many Jews — and hostility toward Jews.

Opponents of divestment sometimes allude to the Holocaust. “What bothers me is the shocking amnesia of people who look at the situation of American Jews right now and say, ‘You’re privileged, you don’t have a right to complain about discrimination”…

At several schools where divestment proposals have been considered, swastikas have been painted on the doors of Jewish fraternities.

“There’s more poison in the rhetoric than we’ve ever felt before,” said Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller, the executive director of Hillel at the University of California, Los Angeles

Some of the talk was openly hostile [to Israel], with charges of racism and colonialism.

So BDS echoes the Nazis… Deep in the article Jannine Salman of Students for Justice in Palestine at Columbia gets to make an excellent point:

“Zionism is a political identity, Judaism is a religious identity, and it does a disservice to both to blur the line.”

But the article gets right back to business. These zealous minorities are persecuting Jews. A Jewish student states the point of view of the article:

Voting for divestiture, she said, is “pointing fingers, it’s aggressive, it’s misinformed, it’s unjust, and — most important for this campus — it’s totally one-sided.”

Abe Foxman is one of the saner voices in the piece, saying that Jews feel safe on campuses. But don’t believe that!

“Jewish students and their parents are intensely apprehensive and insecure about this movement,” said Mark Yudof, a former president of the University of California system. “I hear it all the time: Where can I send my kids that will be safe for them as Jews?”

The authors clearly think that anti-Zionists are crazy people. When they touch on the politics of the case– young people are turning against the idea of a Jewish state– they do so hysterically.

Supporters of Israel say the most dangerous possibility is that the current campus atmosphere is delegitimizing the country, making it acceptable to question whether Jews are entitled to a nation.

Is that dangerous? Actually, that’s a perfectly acceptable question. And anti-Zionists think that a democracy in Israel and Palestine would make the world less dangerous.

The commenters at the Times site include many who endorse the article’s thrust. But among the “Readers’ Picks” are several who point out the hysteria, and the article’s failure to say that many Jews support BDS.

Alan Sanders of New York.

Those against BDS don’t seem to have any argument that Israel is not oppressing Palestinians in a way that is not similar to the oppression of other minority groups in the U.S. or around the world. Their arguments boils down to, “it makes us really uncomfortable.” That’s not a very good argument —

Mark Thomason of Michigan:

This article gives an impression of Jewish students against others who are not Jewish.

A great many Jewish students too are deeply troubled by the right wing government and behavior of Israel. They too support efforts to end the current path to disaster.

It is not Jews against the rest. Supporters of the right wing in Israel try to hide behind that idea, and the article ought to have been more clear that it is not so.

James North of New York (and Mondo):

The article should point out that many of the students who favor Boycott Divestment Sanctions are also Jewish, and BDS is backed by nationwide organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace.

PCohen of France:

American Jews and American Christian zionists have, together, forged a US -Israel alliance that has emboldened Israel to become one of the worst oppressors imaginable. In the ME where oppression is the rule. Israel, not being an exception, asks for exceptional policies of impunity! And gets it. The irreparable destruction of Palestine is finally reaching the brains of young Jews in the USA. What has been done in their name starts to get understood. Is it still relevant?

Posted In:

263 Responses

Just be glad that several thousand students have pushed divestment onto the front page of the Times. Stop whining abut the how the article is unfair to those brave students. Did you expect better? You’ll get better articles when divestment resolutions are stronger, louder, and non-stop, all semester, every semester.

If you want a better article, try yelling for a total boycott against Israel, to the maximum extent allowed by law. Do you really believe “Israel” is a racist bastard state? Then try sounding like you mean it.

Look at the Black Panthers. They spoke as if Black life truly mattered. Try speaking that way about Palestinian life — if you believe it.

Look at Wayne State University’s Student Council. Their divestment resolution had a backbone. It demanded “divestment from all companies doing business in Israel.” Look: http://tinyurl.com/85r6um2

But if you whimper and whine, how do you think you’ll be treated? Grow a backbone.

Try saying “Cut all Ties With the Racist State”. It worked on South Africa, didn’t it?

The NYT is the most important newspaper in the US and quite possibly the Western world. It matters.

Further, The Times’ coverage of the I/P conflict is looking more and more like the Klansman’s paper. Would the NYT ever run a demographic scare-mongering piece about darkskinned people who are a “hostile force” to white Apartheid supporters?

This article clearly shows the dual standards in the West. How Jewish apartheid is somehow “different” from white Apartheid and, well, the young students across the nation aren’t having it.

And that enrages the NYT, which is a staunch Zionist paper and at this stage is probably even to the right of the WSJ(I’m barely joking) on this issue. It’s moved to the far-right on I/P.

Apartheid is Apartheid, whatever the group that benefits. This is also why it will be much more difficult to tear down Jewish Apartheid than white Apartheid; Jewish Apartheid has a lot of elite support in so-called “liberal media” that white Apartheid never had.

And here Chomsky/Finkelstein falter. This is about Jewish sociology, this is about tribalism. Not “US imperialism” or whatever. White-ruled SA was a staunch anti-communist ally in the 70s and 80s. Didn’t prevent the liberal media from taking a stand – even if it didn’t benefit US imperialism.

The difference now is palpatable. And that means the fight will take much longer, because a lot of people have their entire Jewish identity mixed up in the defence of an Apartheid state. And a lot of those people run our elite liberal media, that’s just the blunt truth of the story.

After we got to talk about AIPAC, the media is next. The same people who tried to prevent & smear the debate on AIPAC/Israel lobby will do the same on the media. But articles like these will prove the point for us.

“White-ruled SA was a staunch anti-communist ally in the 70s and 80s. Didn’t prevent the liberal media from taking a stand – even if it didn’t benefit US”

You’re of course correct that the media was more honest about SA, though even here if you go back and look you’ll find that plenty of people made some of the same arguments the hasbara crowd makes today. After the fact everyone became anti-apartheid, sort of how after the fact almost everyone claims to love Martin Luther King, though they usually leave out how anti war he had become. And South Africa was an exception for the press–if you look at other cases the press was often horrible. The Timorese suffered genocide while most of the American press said literally nothing for years and there has never been an honest mainstream accounting of how 100-200,000 people died under 5 successive U.S. Administrations as Indonesia used American weapons to kill them.

If Keith is around, he could probably add details. So could I, if I wanted to spend the time.

Yes, there is an added extra dimension of bigotry from the pro-Israel crowd, but let’s not imagine the mainstream press could ever be trusted when it came to human rights issues. They usually let the politicians set the tone. The advent of the Internet has made some difference– they now know that when they cover something up there are many more outlets for dissenters. In the old days you could write a letter to the editor, which was a complete joke and waste of time.

The only additional observations I would make is to point out that first, South Africa was not as strategically important as Israel and the Middle East. Second, that the Palestinians do not have a large and sympathetic American constituency like the South African Blacks had. And last, but surely not least, is that South African whites did not enjoy the support of anything even remotely comparable to the Israel Lobby. When both parties are dependent upon one group for the bulk of their campaign funding, it is amazing the effect that this can have on policy and media reporting.

You are completely insane. The New York Times has published article after article critical of Israel this year especially, and most of the editorials and op-eds place it firmly on the liberal side of the spectrum with regard to Israel.

Well put. Trying to figure out which Israeli products were produced in Judea and Samaria seems to miss the point. Is the point of BDS to exonerate Israel proper for crimes it commits in its occupied territories?

So they anticipate the Zionists’ howls and build their BDS campaigns to dodge those howls.

Thus BDS has morphed into a series of whimpers to please form college committees to please consider possibly selling off stock in a few American companies which do bad things to Palestinians.

See? No actual divestment from Israel. No boycott of Israel. No chance that the “anti-Semitism” insult can ever be invoked, right? Wrong. No matter what you say, if you try to protect Palestinian life, you will be called an “anti-Semite”.

Just get used to it, ignore it, stop whining, and say Cut All Ties with “Israel”.

Or else you’ll be on your knees whimpering until the last Palestinian is dead.

Hey, Blaine has a point. Fiddle fucking around with BDS on the edges to hurt Israeli manufacturers for products made in the territories is a pathetically weak response for a state that has been knowingly committing apartheid for half a century. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/occupation-becomes-apartheid

If it really is apartheid, and it is, you need a South Africa-like response. The problem isn’t Israeli manufacturers who operate in the territories, the problem is Israel itself. You need to make Israel and Israelis pay the price of continuing apartheid, not just a few manufacturers.

The man’s analysis is spot-on even if it is making some of you uncomfortable.

No, justice will not prevail if you are unable to even speak your name! Otherwise, your point is a perfectly good one: how can someone complain about the weak posture of the divestment movement when that someone is unwilling to set a stronger example themselves?

The answer is this: I have publicly demanded a total boycott of Israel, to the maximum extent allowed by law.

I have done this at multiple city councils, at many student government meetings, at public demonstrations, and in a federal lawsuit demanding “Boycott-Israel” bus ads.

Mondoweiss’ answer was that our “Boycott-Israel” demonstrations would make the BDS movement look terrible — hence they refused to front-page them.

Annie saw the video of our city council demonstration. She was horrified that the huge crowd of demonstrators included a student who felt that Palestinians are going through a Holocaust themselves. That student was 100% right in my opinion, and 100% wrong in Annie’s opinion.

So an excellent example of how to demand a boycott of Israel never made it to Mondoweiss readers, although of course Annie could change her mind the next time Israel incinerates Gaza. I would hope she doesn’t wait that long.

Annie represents the dominant thinking in he BDS movement- that looking good is more important than showing Panther-style defiance in our rhetoric towards the apartheid state.

Even after Israel torched 2200 Palestnians to death last summer, there is still no place in the current BDS movement for my opinion. Not even in Mondoweiss.

My opinion is that we must loudly call for cutting all ties with Israel, at the highest volume allowed by law, or else Palestine simply can’t be heard at all. Palestine is not Superman. It’s only made of flesh and bone.

How long can Palestine survive unless students shout for boycotting Israel all year long? One month a year of timid BDS resolutions, on a tiny handful of campuses, just isn’t enough. Nor is so much timidity necessary to protect the students. There is no Bull Conner police force willing to brutalize lawful BDS demonstrators on television.

You must know that my opinion is right smack in the mainstream in Palestine, especially among those who keep getting incinerated by “Israel”. I hope it will be adopted by Mondoweiss before Palestine is bulldozed out of existence.

Blaine~ I believe that I want what you want. I want the US to not only cut out the ‘bff” in the world status, but also to sanction Israel.

I know you mean well, and that you care deeply about Palestinians and justice. I wish you would make your important points the way I know that you can instead of blasting in with both guns blazing, and sometimes insulting folks who really mean well.

Hmmm. Not one of the 5 responses to Blaine dealt with the substance of his argument, that BDS-lite isn’t working. Your responses were little more than ad hominem. If you don’t like the man’s argument, dispute it with your own. Snarky personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive.

As to Blaine’s tone, sure it was a bit over the top, but sometimes blunt, impolite language is necessary to wake people up to the reality of what is happening and how current efforts are having a marginal impact at best.

“Annie saw the video of our city council demonstration. She was horrified that the huge crowd of demonstrators included a student who felt that Palestinians are going through a Holocaust themselves. That student was 100% right in my opinion, and 100% wrong in Annie’s opinion. –”

I’m sorry Blaine, am I missing something in the comments at the link? I couldn’t read them all. Is there another video I missed? Or a discussion at Mondo?

My point is that there is scarcely ever room in Mondoweiss for frontal boycott assaults on the legitimacy of “Israel”, and that’s the shame.

Certainly Annie has the right to reject raw video, and raw scribblings. I will even give her a sure-fire excuse: she is short on time. She can’t be bothered to edit every unpolished submission, and I am not the greatest writer.

But that was not Annie’s reason for rejecting the very dramatic boycott campaign in Ann Arbor during the Gaza Massacre of 2014. I sent her numerous mainstream media links to that Boycott-Israel campaign, as it was unfolding. None of them were ever front-paged or back-paged in Mondoweiss. And she told me of her horror at the kid who complained that Palestinians were going through a Holocaust. She also expressed her opinion that the kid thereby made the whole movement look bad.

Certainly Annie is no censor. Certainly she sincerely wants to put the best face on the BDS movement. Virtually the entire BDS movement agrees with Annie: they feel revulsion to see anyone say “Boycott Israel entirely”, or “Fuck Israel”, or similar blanket rejections of the Israeli state. They feel it would bring down an intolerable amount on condemnation on the BDS students’ heads, and would sink the enterprise.

Certainly Annie has the right to reject raw video, and raw scribblings. She can’t be bothered to edit every unpolished submission, and I am not the greatest writer.

But that couldn’t be Annie’s reason for flatly omitting the Ann Arbor Boycott-Israel campaign, especially during the Gaza Massacre of 2014. I sent her numerous mainstream media links to that Boycott-Israel campaign, as it was unfolding. None of them were ever front-paged in Mondoweiss. Do you want some examples?

So Mondoweiss had their choice of mainstream boycott articles to showcase. They got a ton of them directly from me, too. In some of these links, you can see a packed City Council chamber — young people chanting “Boycott Israel” over and over.

blaine, i did not “flatly omit” your submission. the final say on what’s published on MW is always at the discretion of phil and adam. whenever i think a submission (sent solely to me, as opposed to cc’d to phil and adam) is not worthy of publication i send it to them. i am not the gatekeeper of what gets published here and you can always send things directly to [email protected] (see our about page) and those get picked up by adam and phil. iow, i don’t have final say. when you pressured me to explain why i didn’t think your video was worthy of publication i explained this to you. neither phil or adam were impressed by your video and text (which was also unpublishable).

* See link to mlive.com (2014)

* See also link to mlive.com (2014)

your communication to me i recall rejecting was not last august and you have not included the rejected video in your comment above so those are not “examples” of what you sent that we had multiple exchanges about. why is that?

Is that really something of no interest to Mondoweiss readers?

why not simply post a link to the video that was rejected and let readers judge for themselves. it included an older gentleman (not “a kid”) discussing/lecturing on the holocaust out on the sidewalk after the protest inside the city council meeting. i’m sure you have it. it was not recorded by local news staff or attached to a news article as i recall. i’m sure you know what video i am referencing, i sent an extensive email explaining why i thought it wasn’t suitable for publication. unfortunately my old computer crashed last december so i don’t have a record of our exchange anymore or i would post it myself.

there are many people in ann arbor who can write, why not have someone else report about these protests or send in a forward to the news article? or, if you think i am the impediment to why your submissions get rejected simply send them directly to phil and adam. i am one of 5 editors on staff. why are you sending me your submissions if you think i’m the reason you’re not getting published here?

i must say, i find this to be an extraordinary exchange. many submissions have been rejected over the years, but this is the first time i have ever witnessed someone complaining in the comment section about their submission being rejected or blaming me for that. why not take up your complaints with phil or adam? also, have you tried other publications? is anyone else publishing your work? also, i don’t know how to edit videos, that’s not something we do and your text was unpublishable imho.

…..You’ll get better articles when divestment resolutions are stronger, louder, and non-stop, all semester, every semester.

irishmoses May 10, 2015, 5:55 pm
Hey, Blaine has a point. Fiddle fucking around with BDS on the edges to hurt Israeli manufacturers for products made in the territories is a pathetically weak response for a state that has been knowingly committing apartheid for half a century. link to mondoweiss.net
……

irish, thanks for linking to your excellent article. however, in the context of blaine’s remarks i notice your article doesn’t tackle the ineffectiveness of campus activisim on american campuses that he has a penchant for continually harping on.

i have a suggestion, since you are a great writer, why not try to work with him “editing” his articles, or better yet write one on your own denigrating the work of student activists reduced to a “series of whimpers”. inform them of how they could be more effective and do it better. of course, i can’t guarantee an article like that will get published here but you could give it a shot. and if that sounds snarky, i’m serious. i’m really not sure there’s any amount of lipstick you could put on that pig to make it publishable, but you could sure as heck give it a shot.

My main point was that the issue of whether the current BDS-Lite is working or whether a stronger version is needed is an important discussion. Taking the stronger view, extending BDS to cover Israel, not just its settlement-produced products, is not intrinsically disrespectful of the immense efforts of JVP and MW. Discussions about whether tactics or strategies are working are important.

That said, Blaine’s tone and approach to this important discussion does seem pretty confrontational and strident. His approach is having the opposite affect intended by angering those who he thinks disagree with his side of the argument. The more he does that, the less people will be willing to listen to his otherwise valid points. My advice to him would be tone it down several notches and try to persuade people to accept his point of view. To his credit, he sees the continuing oppression of the Palestinians as unacceptable and that BDS-Lite, in his view, is not making any tangible difference in their suffering. His frustration is certainly understandable.

As to MW editorial decisions about what to publish, that’s your call. Those decisions are difficult to make and I don’t envy you and the time and effort it takes to review submission and make those decisions (or recommendations in your case). I personally like the mix of articles published on MW and the current more moderated tone of discussion.

Finally, Blaine raised an important issue that’s worthy of discussion, but Blaine, with his current overly strident approach, is inhibiting that discussion by making adversaries of those who he needs as allies.

why bother with Mondoweiss? Because it’s an extremely valuable resource for boycott-Israel activists on campus — what’s missing is the activists. There is no student on any campus campaigning for boycott of Israel. They are terrified to even be accused of that.

So the very few, honorable students pushing for “BDS” spend one month a year pushing to form committees to consider divesting from a few companies that contribute to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Israeli bombardment of Gaza…..the BDS crew has designed it to be really hard to understand. This is how they protect themselves from accusations that they seek to boycott Israel itself. Yet they really should demand total boycott of Israel itself.

So we get one month of weak divestment resolutions each year, and a menu of tasty Mondoweiss articles

A few years ago, I begged you, in Ann Arbor to please mention boycotting Israel in your presentation. You simply could not do it. Now it’s fashionable — so you do speak favorably of BDS, to those who invite you. A good time is had by all — and it never appears in the mass media.

…

Enjoy your junket, lubricated with the tears of 15th-century European exiles. It would have been timely and important 600 years ago.

But today, if you’re not marching into the big city councils of the United States, demanding a total boycott against “Israel”, you are no more than coffee-table chatter for those few who read Mondoweiss.

need i go on? we’ve been hearing this mantra from blaine for years. he doesn’t really comment on much else accept complaining what a lousy job we’re doing. it’s a broken record.

My main point was that the issue of whether the current BDS-Lite is working or whether a stronger version is needed is an important discussion.

well that’s not my main point gil. my main point is that calling phil and activist “whimper and whine(r)” telling phil to “Grow a backbone”. coming on top comment, on an (excellent) article reviewing and critiquing the nyt with advice like “If you want a better article, try yelling for a total boycott against Israel” as if mondoweiss has some position on only boycotting the settlements (we don’t) or that we solely run articles advocating bds limited to the settlements (that’s not our policy) and these sorts of comments are not aberrations they are (as far as i know) almost exclusively what blaine writes here. it is, for the most part, as far as i can tell, a rant directed at us.

extending BDS to cover Israel, not just its settlement-produced products, is not intrinsically disrespectful of the immense efforts of JVP and MW.

imho, blaine’s very much are.

Discussions about whether tactics or strategies are working are important.

agreed.

My advice to him would be tone it down several notches and try to persuade people to accept his point of view.

glad you mentioned that. because i only heard the part about our snarkyness and ad hominems.

As to MW editorial decisions about what to publish, that’s your call. Those decisions are difficult to make

it’s not my call what we publish. it’s only my call what i want to work on and draft. and that call is not difficult at all for me. for others not having read blaine’s article nor viewed his submission, not only do i find it outlandish and highly unprofessional he would drag the rejection into this thread, along with my name attached to his complaint to debate it here (and whoever moderated his comment dragging my name into it, and you can believe it was not me) to have to come on here and defend my decision, the idea it’s even a debatable topic is absurd. he could try getting it published elsewhere.

i think it is quite telling he’s chosen to deny the option to post the video we rejected into this thread! it would be an excellent example of how NOT to advocate for palestine, which i told him and explained thru several emails!

so he can go on denigrating mondoweiss, phil, me, activists on campus, whatever. but for me, the over riding emphasis of his advocacy is not a discussion about “whether tactics or strategies are working are important” it’s about bashing bds tactics and the bds movement. and i’m not going to be part of it.

Annie,
My first response was based on the initial 5 replies to Blaine’s comment, all of which were directed at him and not at his argument. At that point, I had no idea of his history with you and MW. As my latest reply to you shows, his strident and emotional approach to this issue is counterproductive and he needs to change it if he wants to have any real impact.

I’m not sure what else I can say. I am sorry you had to put so much effort into responding to his charges.

He sounds very much like Hophmi. Has he given his opinion on your workmanship yet? If he made those claims and characterizations and linked to the video or writing, he might have something. Without doing that, well….

i don’t think he can link to the writing unless it’s self published, but he could blockquote the text. the video he could link to, assuming he’s downloaded it somewhere, no one is stopping him. he could put it on youtube and link it to the comment section.

A month ago the University of Michigan’s Central Student Government voted 15-29 against forming an ad hoc committee to investigate the relationship between the school and four companies that profit by violating the human rights of Palestinians. Some would call this BDS lite, but if the resolution had instead called for a complete boycott of Israel, what kind of support do you think it would have achieved? Should we prefer to give the campus apologists of Israeli policies an even more resounding victory? I am all for a complete boycott, but campus and government resolutions need to be crafted to give them a fighting chance of passage, even if that means limiting the immediate goals. It’s the art of politics.

Blaine is not correct. Just consider this “BDS lite” achievement from the Presbyterian Church (USA) 2014 General Assembly:

By a vote of 310-303, the Assembly approved an overture calling for divestment from Caterpillar Inc., Hewlett-Packard and Motorola Solutions, companies some allege are engaged in “non-peaceful pursuits” in the region. A similar overture failed 333-331 at the 220th Assembly

Does anyone think that it would have been better to have ratcheted up the resolution to a full boycott of Israel? The headlines would have been much different. Again, I am all for a full boycott.

In the political realm, it may be difficult to get the votes for full BDS, but do you think the results would be different? I’d venture to say likely not. If a large growing group threatens Israel with a complete boycott, it will encourage those inside Israeli (universities, political orgs, youth) to step up their game and fight against a seemingly ever dominating fascist government.

This boycott around the edges is confusing to the average person outside the realm of truly understanding of the conflict. A complete BDS effort against the state of Israel, will hasten their occupation that is dragging on for Decades! Israelis should start to worry about full BDS because it is going to happen sooner or later, because their leadership is asunder and corrupt with racism, and not to mention their Napoleonic complex.

This is the discussion I was hoping for, generated by Blaine raising this important issue albeit in a less than civil manner.

At this point, I still don’t know which side I come down on, but my opinion matters little as I’m not on the front lines demonstrating and organizing like Blaine and all the other brave souls in JVP and other activist organizations who are on the cutting edge of BDS.

I’ve noticed, over the years, that we have a disturbing tendency to start eating our own when we have internal disputes over tactics and doctrine. Some are even banished into the desert despite being important, if controversial, voices, and tarred with the (you guessed it) brush of antisemitism (e.g. Gilad Atzmon).

If BDS is going to be an effective tool against the occupation, why not go whole hog?
boycotting is also a scare tactic, that will encourage those within Israel to do something.
Imagine an art exhibit by Israelis is not permitted in many nations. Israelis then feel the door is closing on them – being shunned for a rotten state. It encourages them to change, their wicked direction of their government.

(ckg – I understand your position, but I think BDS can be more. why would people engage in a boycott that only boycotts less than 5% of the systemic problem)

Hmmm…I don’t think Israel is worried that BDS is detrimental to its economic standing. Rather the apartheid state is worried that BDS is detrimental to its public opinion standing, especially in the U.S. Public opinion, unfortunately, moves at a deliberate pace except in war, in partisan politics, and in trumpeted fear, but the goal should be to keep public opinion progressing forward. I fully understand that Palestinians can’t wait in disenfranchisement and suffering, especially in Gaza, for long. But I don’t have better realistic answers.

I.M., this thread is getting way too long, but if 60% of American Jews favor boycott (1%+-/-)
that should be indicative for the cross section of the American public, although the media encourages people’s humdrum opinions. (I watch CNN Wolf Blitzer twice a week).

I agree that Israel is not too concerned about the impact of boycotts directly. Divestment represents a threat however as existing companies, particularly those that are western based or rely on western markets may relocated. Additionally it may deter adverse risk operations from locating there. This can have a huge impact in terms of lost economic inputs and employment. If employment goes the real talent will relocate as well. Sanctions can be crippling of course.

They need to fight it at the boycott and divestment level for those reasons and also, as you say, to win the public perception battle. If they lose that then sanctions are inevitable if they dont reverse course. Even naftali bennet realizes this when he says we must make ourselves indispensible to the world. They arent close to that yet.

In terms of boycotting Israel or merely the settlements it should certainly be Israel as it is the one undertaking the illegal acts, encouraging them and profiting from the crime.

Such a move is not feasible at this time in my opinion but will be, if needed, once public sentiment comes around and sees the crimes being perpetrated daily by Israel.

“Do you really believe “Israel” is a racist bastard state? Then try sounding like you mean it.”

Sometimes it seems Phil’s main concern is the public image and reputation of his people, which he is intent on saving. While this is ultimately related to the well-being of the Palestinian people, it is not the same thing.

And it raises the question of what he’s going to do if his “reawakening of the Jewish conscience” stalls out at the 5% level?

you’re right about Phil’s concern. He has said so at the outset of this blog.
Israel is embarrassing to the progressive agenda of many American Jews, but has extended to every political American sphere of politics. This is decades of suppression. Imagine being in the democratic part like like Kucinich, and trying to carry water for Israel apartheid.

Correct, Coleman. Try sounding like you mean it. Finally some reason. What it takes is the readiness to cut all ties but not all look ready. In the two years I’ve been following this web site, I couldn’t make up my mind about its attitude to Zionism.

But the way I get the “about” page, is that Mondo is a journalistic and informational site, about IP issues, and the anti-zionist movement, and Israel-critical movement, but Mondo is not the movement itself. It can’t be, because that would compromise its journalistic and informational mission. Yes, Mondo is informed by certain values, but those are, I would think, general humanitarian values, not a political program. And reporting on IP issues and the various politics associated with it is a big enough job in itself.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

“whimper and whine” really. Phil happens to be a I believe co creator of one of most important Middle east sites going. He has taken all sorts of serious risk. I so appreciate his willingness and persistent work targeting the Bloody New York Times role in inaccurately reporting about Israeli human rights crimes and now trying to take down the BDS movement by inaccurately describing what they are about.

One thing for sure I think Phil is exactly right “The piece is important because it reflects the the growing success of the BDS movement” Thanks Phil and Mondoweiss team for all of your important work. Although the situation for the Palestinians has not changed. Certainly more awareness.

“The only additional observations I would make is to point out that first, South Africa was not as strategically important as Israel and the Middle East.”

While the Middle East may be important due to its oil supply, Israel is of no strategic value whatsoever. A tiny racist colonial settler state thousands of miles away with no valuable natural resources.

Absent the existence of “The Lobby”, we would never hear about that backwards little apartheid state.

It is not wise to put all of your eggs in the omnipotent Lobby basket. Powerful yes, all powerful no. Many strategic analysts feel differently from you. I quote one who is based in Russia and writes for The Saker, hardly an apologist for Israel.

” Israel, unlike any other American allies, is directly dependent on the US for both its creation and existence, and is hence much more reliable as a long-term committed ally (both ideologically and politically) than any other country. The US needs Israel’s strategic location and regional military contracting services to keep Arab governments perpetually weak and divided, while Israel needs the US’ full-spectrum support to continue to exist, thus explaining the intensive depth of support that each entity has for the other.” (Andrew Korybko) http://thesaker.is/exceptionalists-vs-integrationalists-the-eurasian-wide-struggle/

May 12, 2015, 7:45 am

Keith “Israel….is hence much more reliable as a long-term committed ally (both ideologically and politically) than any other country.”

Keith, Israel a committed long term ally? That is being delusional. Israel is a little parasite that feeds off the US, and will not be existing if not for the endless aid , weapons, and ridiculous support at the UN.

We have much closer allies than Israel. Allies that fight with our kids, and do not provoke wars for us. Israel has sold our weapons to China, have had Americans and Israelis spy on us (Pollard being one traitor), bombed our USS Liberty and pretended it was an “oops”, protected members of the JDL that murdered an Arab American activist in California,
and it’s present PM has insulted our President and turned the spineless Congress into his servants.
Yeah, fine ally, that.

GILES, KAY- Did you guys read the whole article? If not, suggest you do. Strategic analysis is a different way of evaluating a situation based upon power dynamics. Why does Andrew Korybko feel that Israel is a reliable ally? Because Israel is totally dependent upon empire. If the Lobby was omnipotent, then Israel, with our help, would no longer be totally dependent. With their powerful military they could easily conquer a small petro-state and be independent. Additionally, Israel is dependent upon the American Jewish Diaspora for much of this ongoing support. Netanyahu, for example, gets over 90% of his campaign funding from American Jews and you better believe that Israeli policy reflects that. I provide another quote from another strategic analyst who you are probably familiar with to lend some support to Korybko’s analysis.

“Israel is dependent on the United States as no other country is on a friendly power…. Israel sees in intransigence the sole hope for preserving its dignity in a one-sided relationship. It feels instinctively that one admission of weakness, one concession granted without a struggle, will lead to an endless catalogue of demands…. And yet Israel’s obstinacy, maddening as it can be, serves the purpose of both our countries best. A subservient client would soon face an accumulation of ever-growing pressures. It would tempt Israel’s neighbors to escalate their demands. It would saddle us with the opprobrium for every deadlock.” (Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Straight Power Concepts in the Middle East” by Gregory Harms)

“If the Lobby was omnipotent, then Israel, with our help, would no longer be totally dependent. With their powerful military they could easily conquer a small petro-state and be independent. ”

Keith,

Israel does not have the capabilities to conquer any state. Even its subjected Indigenous population must be walled, put ‘on a diet’ to be dealt with. It, however, has a track record in indiscriminate bombing. It is totally dependent on the U.S. and controls important levers of American policy in the Middle East. No one claims the Israel lobby is ‘all powerful’. The empire would still suck but not as much and that would be the difference between saving many innocent lives. I believe the U.S. would still exercise intrigues but mostly ‘soft power’ after Vietnam.

Is this a good sign or a more ominous one? To me, it shows the Nation’s Paper of Record has now joined the campaign to redefine antisemitism into a more broad category which encompasses any and all criticism of Israel, including the tactic of BDS.

That’s kind of scary in view of nations like France and Canada changing their hate speech laws to include criticism of Israel as a form of Jew Hatred. Maybe we are seeing the beginning of a full-court press aimed at smothering all critical dialogue about Israel on the grounds that it is really just criminal antisemitic hate speech?

To allow my paranoia to run to its logical conclusion, once these laws are passed, anyone who criticizes or has criticized Israel, becomes a antisemitic felon, whether post facto or ex. Under that unpleasant scenario, would MW qualify as the greatest antisemitic criminal conspiracy in recent history?

I agree, except that for the NYT the definition of antisemitism has always included criticism of Zionism or even criticism of Israel that is a little too hard hitting. For instance, someone like Jerome Slater is a liberal Zionist, but because he is honest about Israel’s human rights record his views would not be mentioned in the NYT–that level of honesty would make him a suspicious figure. They wouldn’t know what to do with him. I think with Phil and with the JVP, Jews who aren’t Zionists at all, they are ready to imply self-hatred or fashionable radicalism as their way of discrediting them, but with Slater and his ilk they wouldn’t know what to say, so they don’t even hint of their existence.

The NYT deliberately looks at the racism issue upside-down. The students who believe in universal standards of human rights applicable to all are portrayed as possible bigots, but the students who reflexively defend a country which is practicing apartheid are treated as the victims of bigotry rather than as self-pitying bigots themselves.

|| Donald: … The students who believe in universal standards of human rights applicable to all are portrayed as possible bigots, but the students who reflexively defend a country which is practicing apartheid are treated as the victims of bigotry rather than as self-pitying bigots themselves. ||

“Slater and his ilk…” has a very disparaging sound to it. although I don’t think you intended it that way. Jerry Slater is a very important voice (as you point out). He is well past “liberal Zionism” and has put his academic credentials on the line with a very brave and accurate analysis of Jewish terrorism: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/terrorism-palestinian-argument which was rejected outright by a host of gutless academic publications that normally publish his work.

“Slater and his ilk…” has a very disparaging sound to it. although I don’t think you intended it that way. Jerry Slater is a very important voice (as you point out). He is well past “liberal Zionism” and has put his academic credentials on the line with a very brave and accurate analysis of Jewish terrorism”

You’re right that I didn’t mean that to sound disparaging, but yeah, I should not have used the word”ilk” as it does sound disparaging.

On liberal Zionism, it’s been my long held belief that the term is very broad. For the most part liberal Zionists are people who criticize the settlements, but tend to support Israel when it slaughters civilians. But on the extreme left wing of the liberal Zionist spectrum you find people like Slater, who still thinks the idea of a Jewish state was justifiable in the late 40’s given the Holocaust. However Slater pulls no punches when describing Israel’s crimes. I don’t think the NYT knows what to do with someone like him, so they ignore him entirely.

I don’t see Israel’s existence as justified by the Holocaust, after all, the idea of allowing Jews to create a homeland within Palestine came from the Balfour Declaration which was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922. The legality of Israel as a state seems to stem from the UNGA’s ratification of the 1947 Partition Plan and Israel’s subsequent acceptance an a member state of the UN under the terms of that plan.

To me, while grossly unfair to the Palestinians, that’s the legal justification for the existence of the state of Israel. A liberal Zionist, like Jerry Slater, may see that as a reasonable basis for being a Zionist while disagreeing with and condemning all illegal Zionist actions post ratification. So, to me, being a liberal Zionist is not necessarily a fatal flaw so long as one doesn’t deny Palestinian rights (e.g. the other half of the Balfour Declaration) or attempt to justify illegal Zionist behavior.

Amazing, Donald, how this movement is simply not capable of any self-reflection. Most people who know anything about what’s going on campus will read this piece for it is – a completely accurate piece about BDS and Jews on campus. BDS is largely the province of minority groups on campus – except for Jews, who are excluded from that minority status and painted, falsely, as white for the purpose of racializing the conflict. Several BDS campaigns have included the appearance of swastikas on Jewish fraternity houses.

If the article misses a nuance, it is that at the same time these minority groups push BDS, which makes many Jews feel less safe on campus, the minority groups themselves work to censor all kinds of viewpoints on the ground that these viewpoints make them feel unsafe on campus, including speakers that criticize speech codes, speakers that are right of center, and really any voice that might “trigger” a negative feeling amongst the members of one of these groups. And this is why, in this atmosphere, pushing BDS is directly linked to censorship on campus, even as its proponents claim, falsely, that they’re the ones being censored.

” Several BDS campaigns have included the appearance of swastikas on Jewish fraternity houses.”

Yes, I don’t know why a member of a Jewish fraternity would feel putting a swastika on their fraternity house would help ward off BDS, but apparently they do. Is it becoming a good-luck symbol for Jewish fraternities?

“Yes, I don’t know why a member of a Jewish fraternity would feel putting a swastika on their fraternity house would help ward off BDS, but apparently they do. Is it becoming a good-luck symbol for Jewish fraternities?”

Right. Another “antisemitism is all fake” comment. Every instance of antisemitism is dismissed here with nonsense like this.

because what it looks more like to me is Several counter BDS campaigns have included the appearance of swastikas on Jewish fraternity houses. it’s not too hard to figure out who this helps. the mainstay argument of counter divestment folks is how their ideological opponents are hateful and anti semitic. so the appearance of these swasticas supports their meme. they have as much to gain from this (or more) than anyone else. so why not produce one instance where a campus bds group has been caught placing one of these swasticas? because you can’t that’s why. pff.

IRISHMOSES- “To allow my paranoia to run to its logical conclusion, once these laws are passed, anyone who criticizes or has criticized Israel, becomes a antisemitic felon, whether post facto or ex.”

Hardly paranoid to recognize the rapid descent into overt fascism we are undergoing. Being the pessimist (realist?) that I am, would it be too much of a stretch to suggest that those who criticize Israel also criticize empire? Therefore, critics of empire could/would be prosecuted as anti-Semites as a means of silencing their anti-imperialism? In the immortal words of Lily Tomlin, “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up!”

On foreign policy issues and human rights, I’m more surprised when the NYT does something right than when they do something wrong and I’m not engaged in cute snarkiness here. Of course the fact that Israel is involved which makes it even less likely that they will be honest.

You may or may not be familiar with the case of Ray Bonner in El Salvador back in the early 80’s, but he wrote a number of honest articles about the horrific atrocities committed by the U.S. supported government–the U.S. lied about what was going on. The most famous example was the massacre at El Mozote in which 900 villagers were butchered by the Salvadoran army, Bonner reported this, and the Reagan people lied. Abe Rosenthal eventually pulled Bonner out and the reporting from the NYT “improved” from the point of view of the government.

That’s what you can expect from the NYT on issues involving U.S. policy and human rights–occasional spasms of honesty and good reporting followed by a regression to the norm. How it works I generally wouldn’t know, but I think reporters like Bonner tend to be weeded out or learn that the prevailing culture requires them to pull their punches.

Though again with Israel there is an added extra reason for dishonesty.

The NYT is not The Nation. There hasn’t been a shift. The NYT sees itself as a mainstream paper representing mainstream American views. It is Liberal in the sense that 20% of the American people are liberal: they support more environmental regulation than we have now, they support more debt for social programs and they are firmly pro-choice. That’s about it. They equally represent views to the right and left of mainstream liberalism: so a New York Republican is going to get treated about the same as a New York radical. The Liberal bias is noting that BDS gets treated about the same way they treat the Tea Party. The Tea Party represents about 19% of Americans, BDS doesn’t represent 1.9%.

Your problem is you don’t want to deal with how far to the right of you the mainstream left is.

There’s some truth to what you say, JeffB. I don’t know where most American liberals fall on issues though. I often suspect they are further to the left than their establishment representatives both in government and in the media happen to be. I think many Obama voters, for instance, were much further to the left than he was, but they projected their views on him.

The group marked “Solid Liberals” represent the leftmost 15% of the population and because they are disproportionately politically active the leftmost 21% of the electorate. The “Next Generation Left”, “Hard-Pressed Skeptics” and “Young Outsiders” represent the groups Democrats have to appeal to win general elections.

You can see their views on a range of issues. Obama is pretty leftwing relative to the population, the left of the median Democrat. I’m to the left of the electorate, though way to the right of you all, so I’m also depressed by the reality.

But the problem with America is not that our policies don’t represent our population on most issues (there are some exceptions), but rather that our policies do seem to be a fairly good compromise between the positions held by our population and those suck.

Nonsense! The NYT sees itself as the newspaper of record, the official spokesman of the elite. Their views are much more closely aligned with the Council on Foreign Relations than with main street. That is why the NYT supports all of these odious “trade” agreements which most folks wisely oppose.

The very notion of the media and the doctrinal system being a sounding board for the citizenry is ludicrous. The media manufacture consent for elite policies. It could not be otherwise in our system.

“staunch and enthusiastic supporters of those murderous Ukrainian neo-Nazis?” – Keith
I attribute this comment to your ignorance about Europe. It implies at least some support for the illegal confiscation of Crimea and the current attempt to seize south east Ukraine. It’s a bleak future that awaits Europe if the presence of minoritors becomes a reason to annex territories. Turkey could use it as a prerext to annex parts of Bulgaria; there are Albanian minorities in Macedonia, German ones in France and so many more. Russia has already done this to Georgia and helped Armenia to take over Karabakh. American lefties like you instinctively support Russia because it reminds them of the wonderful Soviets. It’s also an example of American provincialism, where all events are seen without local context. By the way, millions of Ukranians fought bravely against Germany in WW2. But then again you call anyone who disagrees with you a Neo Nazi.

@catalan
“It’s a bleak future that awaits Europe if the presence of minoritors becomes a reason to annex territories.”

So it’s not a bleak future that awaits us if the prior presence of minoritors (sic) becomes a reason to annex territories? Such as the West bank or Jerusalem

In terms of where I live it’s actually not a secret which is what has had me laughing at you so much. Your brilliance is in the area of accounting? Big deal. I’m not sure who you are trying to impress. I’ll see your consolidated balance sheet and raise you a current price level accounting.

You claim to be on the side of the average Joe yet side with a state that oppresses millions of innocents. Every individual on this planet deserves the same rights and for any group to claim a superior set of rights is vile beyond measure by my values. I don’t care if someone is Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist or atheist as in my case, provided you don’t claim rights which overrides the rights of others

You demand respect yet you have earned none. No, your degrees or prior experience in fast food takeout doesn’t command respect. Frankly in the real world it is not how you claim your credentials. As you mature you will grow to understand that. Frankly if your experience or expertise was in open heart surgery it still doesn’t command respect from anyone until it is both proven and limited to the field of open heart surgery. I respect my mechanic and plumber a heck of a lot more than I respect you at this point in time. And there is no reason I should not do that.

I don’t know your age although I have posited your posts are typical of a 20 something. Believe me when I say that as you mature you will realize how little you know and how often you are wrong I am past my working years and I spent most of my career hiring and firing middle managers. I really wouldn’t have been concerned half as much about your accounting skills as much as your ability to interact with, and manage, people which is something you clearly lack. Seriously. I don’t give a crap if you can figure out an annuity or current present value if your position is one intended to manage people to obtain an objective.

I wish you luck. You will mature I’m sure. We all do or at least the vast majority of us.

You may have many valid contributions to make to the debate. It would be nice if you do. What you need to do is figure out how to make people open up to your ideas. That’s leadership. That’s what management is about.

So who is in this elite that the NYTimes speaks so? It could be Chomsky’s top 20%, America’s managerial class. I have trouble calling that an elite.

But if certainly isn’t the political elite. You can see that from the coverage. The NYTimes covers politics from an outsider perspective. If you read magazines like The Hill, you can see what an insider perspective looks like: lots of focus on which committees, which chairs and which lobbyists are on the different sides of the issue. The focus is on how a politician or staffer shoudl position themselves relative to an issue there is V=very little focus on the underlying position i.e. how a voter should consider the issue.

It certainly isn’t the economic elite. The articles don’t assume much knowledge of business or economics beyond what a typical supervisor or bottom level manager has. Things like the banking system are treated from an outsider perspective, there is very little trade press conversation about economics.

It certainly isn’t the military elite. there is no assumption about knowledge of weapons systems or military tactics.

CATALAN- “It implies at least some support for the illegal confiscation of Crimea and the current attempt to seize south east Ukraine.”

So, in addition to being a Zionist, you are also an imperialist and support the empire’s Ukrainian coup and war by proxy? And, yes, I support all resistance to empire’s current militaristic madness which has the potential to escalate into nuclear war. First, a couple of quotes and links, then I’ll resume comment.

“Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or (alleged) Russian aggression. That’s all propaganda. It’s about power. It’s about imperial expansion. It’s about spheres of influence. It’s about staving off irreversible economic decline. It’s all part of the smash-mouth, scorched earth, take-no-prisoners geopolitical world in which we live, not the fake Disneyworld created by the western media. The US State Department and CIA toppled the elected-government in Ukraine and ordered the new junta regime to launch a desperate war of annihilation against its own people in the East, because, well, because they felt they had no other option. Had Putin’s ambitious plan to create a free trade zone between Lisbon to Vladivostok gone forward, then where would that leave the United States? Out in the cold, that’s where.” (Mike Whitney)http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/18/washingtons-war-on-russia/

“Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles as part of its Nato enlargement project. Reneging on a US promise to the Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not expand “one inch to the east”, Nato has all but taken over eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato’s military build-up is the most extensive since the second world war.

In February, the US mounted one of its proxy “colour” coups against the elected government of Ukraine; the shock troops were fascists. For the first time since 1945, a pro-Nazi, openly antisemitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital. No western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism on the border of Russia. Some 30 million Russians died in the invasion of their country by Hitler’s Nazis, who were supported by the infamous Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the UPA) which was responsible for numerous Jewish and Polish massacres. The Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, of which the UPA was the military wing, inspires today’s Svoboda party.” (John Pilger)http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/17/nato-ukraine-dr-strangelove-china-us

Catalan- “American lefties like you instinctively support Russia because it reminds them of the wonderful Soviets.”

As usual, you misjudge me. I am not a Marxist and, in fact, think that Marxism is the Left’s Albatross. The USSR was ultimately bound to fail for reasons I don’t care to explore in this comment. Having said that, the old Soviet Union, for all of its faults, at least provided a countervailing force to offset the empire. One consequence was the brief appearance of the non-aligned movement of Third World countries trying to escape the tentacles of empire. I’m fairly certain that without the USSR, the Cuban revolution would have been crushed in typical, murderous fashion. And as for ignorance of European history, surely you are aware that the Eastern part of what is now called the Ukraine, was for centuries part of Russia until Khrushchev for internal political reasons foolishly made it a part of the Ukraine? The failure to correct this historic mistake when the USSR broke up resulted in a Ukraine with two distinct halves which the empire has exploited for geostrategic reasons. And this is what you support? You claim that Svoboda and Right Sector are not neo-nazis, and you support them?

The bottom line is that the empire, for geostrategic reasons, instigated a coup in Kiev and pushed for a Ukrainian civil war. The Ukraine is now yet another failed state as a consequence of this planned destabilization. To achieve its goals, empire required the ruthless commitment of Ukrainian neo-nazis, just as it relies upon ISIS/ISIL/IS to destabilize the Middle East. My original comment to JeffB was to contrast his conflation of BDS with the KKK and neo-nazis, while expressing little concern for US/Zionist supported Ukrainian neo-nazis. Both of you guys are typical Zionists insofar as your focus is exclusively on defending Israel and Zionism. Actual US/Zionist support for neo-nazis (or ISIS for that matter) doesn’t seem to concern you.

Keith,
Factually, only Crimea was given during Krustchev, not all of south east Ukraine. Odessa, Donetsk, etc have been in Ukraine longer, at least since the revolution.
Even if the coup in Ukraine was bad and there are some bad guys there, that doesn’t justify taking territory by force. Every country in Europe has a historical mistake it wishes to correct and for some, there may be good prerext to do so. Say, nationalists win in Romania. Should Hungary invade Transylvania then?
Actually, Israel avoided the vote on Crimea in the UN which irked the U.S. Many of the far right in Europe support the annexation of Crimea because its ethnic politics. So you are in some strange company.

“Keith,
Factually, only Crimea was given during Krustchev, not all of south east Ukraine. Odessa, Donetsk, etc have been in Ukraine longer, at least since the revolution.” (Catalan)

Catalan, the circumstances here are very different to way they are reported in the western msm. I have worked in this part of Ukraine and I have some friends there. The annexation of crimea was a direct result and response to a Washington sponsored vicious coup. If Washington didn’t instigate the coup then the annexation wouldn’t have happened

When hostilities broke out hundreds of thousands of people ran for their lives. And which way did they run? West towards Kiev or East towards Russia? Actually the vast majority (nearly a million) ran towards Russia which is where they sought safety and refuge. And they were taken good care of there. That’s where they felt safe and to them it was their natural home

The vast, vast majority of the people in crimea (and I mean way up in the 90+% majority) want to be part of Russia and not part of the new coup orchestrated Ukraine. Furthermore those in eastern Ukraine held their own referendum and way over 90% voted to (once again) be a part of Russia

You may say that none of the choices of the actual people and the results of the referendum really matter? The UK asked the Falkland Islanders to hold a referendum on whether they wished to be a part of the UK or Argentina. The very vast majority voted for the UK and the UK used that result to put 2 fingers up at Argentina’s claim to the islands.

Whether this is the right method of determining such huge decisions I don’t know but it seems to be perfectly acceptable for the UK so why not Russia?

There is no doubt at all in my mind that had Russia not annexed crimea and support the rebels in eastern Ukraine there would have been a massacre, especially of anyone of political influence, including journalists. Just look at the recent assassinations in Kiev of anyone who was politically aligned with the former President Yanukovitch. Furthermore, the USA would have set up a military Base right on the very border with Russia as well as full Nato expansion right up until that border. From Russia’s point of view it simply had no choice but to do what it did. In my opinion, eastern Ukraine should also be ceded to Russia to prevent any further bloodshed and at least allow Western Ukraine the chance of not becoming a failed state

One of the oldest and (formerly) most respected experts of that region is Professor Stephen Cohen who has consistently spoken the actual truth about what really happened, what is continuing to happen and the possible dire consequences if this USA strategy continues. But as with all truth tellers in the USA (and israel) when the truth becomes ‘inconvenient’ these people are trashed and shot down in flames by the right wing media, regardless of how big their expertise and regardless of their objectivity. Cohen is now routinely called a ‘Putin apologist’ and a Russian 5th columnist for his troubles. His whole career has been trashed simply because he tried to explain the way it really is.

The way that Russia’s actions are portrayed in the western msm bears no relation to the facts on the ground

CATALAN- “Even if the coup in Ukraine was bad and there are some bad guys there, that doesn’t justify taking territory by force.”

Not only are you an imperialist, you are also a shameless apologist for this imperial destabilization. The coup in the Ukraine was “bad?” Try illegal. The Kiev government is totally illegitimate and is funded and controlled by the empire. The only one taking territory by force is the empire utilizing its paramilitary, neo-nazi shock troops. The empire is directly responsible for this Western instigated civil war pitting the Ukrainian speaking western Ukraine against the Russian speaking eastern Ukraine with its deep ties to Russia. Crimea overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, as would any sane person under the threat of these Russophobic neo-nazis. The southeastern breakaway areas simply want to protect themselves from Kiev and empire. This whole gambit is an imperial attempt to force Russia to intervene so as to provide an excuse for ongoing warfare and chaos. Yet another chapter in the neocon inspired “long war” for global hegemony. The situation is clear enough for anyone with at least a little knowledge and an ounce of integrity. But apparently not to you Zionists for empire. Below is a quote and a link which mentions the Odessa massacre, the Kiev terrorist’s version of Deir Yassin, which broke the back of non-violent resistance to the Kiev coup.

“The first one was the fiery holocaust of Odessa, where the peaceful and carelessly unarmed demonstrating workers were suddenly attacked by regime’s thugs (the Ukrainian equivalent of Mubarak’s shabab) and corralled into the Trade Unions Headquarters. The building was set on fire, and the far-right pro-regime Black Guard positioned snipers to efficiently pick off would-be escapees. Some fifty, mainly elderly, Russian-speaking workers were burned alive or shot as they rushed for the windows and the doors. This dreadful event was turned into an occasion of merriment and joy by Ukrainian nationalists who referred to their slain compatriots as “fried beetles”. (It is being said that this auto-da-fé was organised by the shock troops of Jewish oligarch and strongman Kolomoysky, who coveted the port of Odessa. Despite his cuddly bear appearance, he is pugnacious and violent person, who offered ten thousand dollars for a captive Russian, dead or alive, and proposed a cool million dollars for the head of Mr Tsarev, a Member of Parliament from Donetsk.)” (Israel Shamir)http://thesaker.is/the-ukraine-in-turmoil-by-israel-shamir/

The NYT coverage of events and its editorials reflect the perceived consensus view of the dominant organizations which shape policy. Since the Executive Branch of the government usually articulates this policy consensus, the NYT coverage and its editorials will reflect this. This is why there is so much Putin bashing in the NYT, and why they support all of these odious trade agreements. Also, military spending and intervention.

Since you seem to be claiming that the NYT is the peoples paper, perhaps you can show some data indicating where the NYT reflects the popular view- on trade agreements or opposition to foreign interventions, for example – in opposition to elite policy? If the NYT consistently opposed the elite agenda, they wouldn’t be in business. You do understand that the US is a capitalist country, don’t you?

What a great comment !
We all should keep our eye on what’s going on there …doesn’t mean we take it off what this site is all about.
Thank you for putting in the facts so concisely and well.
And @catalan, the great sophisticate , should climb down from his ivory tower and stop denigrating people on this site….. ……’ the example of American provincialism…” !! Not on this site.

Catalan, of course, exposes himself completely: His English is too good, I say, which clearly indicates that he is foreign. Whereas others are instructed in their native language
American people aren’t. And although he may have studied with an expert dialectician and grammarian, I can tell that he was born Bulgarian!
Not only Bulgarian, but of royal blood, he is a prince!

The NYT coverage of events and its editorials reflect the perceived consensus view of the dominant organizations which shape policy.

Which is Chomsky’s definition. Once you start talking about the consensus among dominant organizations you are talking about a consensus among America’s managerial class. Yes the NYTimes reflects those opinions but that’s not an elite that’s just the informed population.

Since the Executive Branch of the government usually articulates this policy consensus, the NYT coverage and its editorials will reflect this.

True but that doesn’t mean anything. The test cases would be when the executive branch holds positions that the managerial class strongly disagrees with. For example on Net-Neutrality the FCC used to be strongly on the side of the telcos and against the software companies and media organizations. As the managerial public was swayed by because the internet media organizations were not shocking better at presenting their case the NYTimes reflected that opinion not the executive branch’s position. Eventually of course Obama got on board the Net-Neutrality train and killed this issue because of the consensus that emerged. During that period before Obama’s intervention to sway the FCC you would have expected, if the NYTimes reflected Executive Branch opinion over broader public opinion for them to have sided with the telcos and against liberals, Google, media organizations…. That is not what happened.

This is why there is so much Putin bashing in the NYT, and why they support all of these odious trade agreements. Also, military spending and intervention.

The public is broadly anti Russia, supports trade, supports military spending and intervention. I get that the NYTimes disagrees with you on stuff but your claim was that it represented some sort of elite. You are the one in the minority on those issues.

Since you seem to be claiming that the NYT is the peoples paper,

I don’t think I said that. I think I was pretty clear top 20%. There are distinctions between managerial opinion and popular opinion and on those issues the NYTimes tends to side with managerial opinion. For example on evolution, sexual morality issues and abortion they clearly side against popular opinion. Or to use your example trade during the 1990s was one where the economic classes had distinctly different opinions.

If the NYT consistently opposed the elite agenda, they wouldn’t be in business. You do understand that the US is a capitalist country, don’t you?

There are places where the truly wealthy diverge from the upper middle and lower upper class politically. For example support for further wealth concentration. And on that issues the NYTimes has quite often presented both sides. The NYTimes’s position is in favor of the government generating more demand in the economy even at the expense of corporate profits and wealth concentration.

In general though I don’t think “elite” the way you are using it means anything. It is a secular version of mystical demons for leftists. There is no elite. The policies of the American government, with some few exceptions, reflect the policies of the American people partially weighted by intensity of those positions. The problem with our politics are rooted in the electorate not some conspiracy of the elite blocking the electorate from doing what they want.

This is a grotesque mischaracterization of the article. The fact is that BDS is trying to link itself to other progressive civil rights movements; it has little momentum of its own and mostly rides on the backs of greater, more important campaigns.

The article was too kind to BDS — the goal of BDS is not to punish Israel for the occupation of the West Bank but to end the state by flooding it with millions of impoverished Arabs.

Second of all, not all minority students belong to or align ideologically with these militant minority groups — most of which are deeply racist themselves.

DoubleStandard–there you go again, writing about a movement you think is ineffectual and doomed to failure. You’re not fooling anyone here. Your numerous comments disparaging BDS reveal that you are very afraid that it is working.

Good point Amigo. Netanyahu keeps saying they are constantly under existential threat from their neighbors, yet tries to lure the diaspora Jews from other nations, to come to Israel, as it is the safest place for Jews. What a contradiction.

The NYT trying to spread zionist propaganda connecting BDS to anti-semitism is the same type of bull…..going by their narrative, it meant that BDS against South Africa also was because the movement was anti White/Afrikaners. I hope this campaign will be as successful as the one against Apartheid South Africa too.

“Israel Sans Frontieres”. Absolutely hilarious Amigo, and so apt. That phrase should become the new label or watcxhword for Israel on college campuses, if not everywhere. It perfectly evokes the hypocrisy of the Greater Israel project:

Mooser, talking about Jews sans Frontieres: these years there seems less application for their good old how-to-make-case-for-israel-and-win, from 2008. (In short, it explains to argue for Zionism by claiming: 1. We rock, 2. They suck, 3. You suck, 4. Everything sucks. Don’t skip steps!).

These “kids” are, of course, hulking great nineteen year olds. In Israel they would be in the Army.

And “safe as Jews”? What does that mean? Safe from what?

From being run over by a bus? From a broken heart? From hearing a pile of garbage about how Man Made Global Warming will doom us all? Someday. From joining a conservative political organization? From the ghastly screaming “music” that shopping centres torture us with? From the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to? From being offended?

All of us, Jew and Gentile, run those risks while we are alive, and the only way of avoiding them is that business with the bare bodkin.

Sometimes “Jew-washing” as a counter-argument to an article like this (i.e. but, but, but…some Jews support BDS…) makes me really uncomfortable. It places (or seems to assume) Jews as the arbiters of right and wrong. It defensively/reactively subscribes to the notion that the comfort of Jews is the balancing point when discussing the routine slaughter of Palestinians and other forms of their dispossession. It completely obscures the point of the exercise (which is obviously why it’s couched in these terms in the initial attack).

The issue is one of simple, stark differences of ongoing, murderous wrong, not one of how some Jews feel about being on the side of ongoing, murderous wrong. Making (or acquiescing to) it about the latter gives the people who frame the debate in this way the win before the conversation even begins.

2) Be completely unconcerned about how Jews feel. Allow BDS to be classified as an anti-Jewish hate group and get treated the way hate groups are treated. BDS gets 1st amendment protections but nothing more. Then BDS can comfortably say whatever mean stuff they want about Jews along with the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Christian Identity…

The problem with the BDS movement is that it doesn’t want the social restrictions put upon groups in category (2) while not meeting the criteria of category (1). But hey, however unfair you think it is now wait until the 1st BDSer lynching in the USA (they’ve already done a bunch in other countries). So far the only laws BDSers have institutionally broken are trespassing and vandalism.

This was in the final version a little bit vague. By “BDSer lynching” I meant lynching by an anti-Zionist of a Jew not the reverse. Sort of like what happened with Christian Identity as they got more popular on rural campuses in the 1980s and early 1990s. Sorry about the lack of clarity.

JEFFB- “Then BDS can comfortably say whatever mean stuff they want about Jews along with the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Christian Identity…”

You are being your usual scurrilous, dishonest self. I am unaware that BDS says any “mean stuff” about Jews per se, they only give examples of the reprehensible behavior of ZIONIST Jews such as yourself. And the conflation of BDS with the KKK and neo-Nazis is shameful, at least for those capable of feeling the emotion. Speaking of neo-Nazis, how come Zionists such as Victoria Nuland and Bernard-Henri levy are such staunch and enthusiastic supporters of those murderous Ukrainian neo-Nazis? Zionists have never had a problem working with Fascists and outright Nazis if it furthered their objectives.

Being concerned about how Jews feel does not imply totally sucking up to them.
Being unconcerned about how Jews feel does not imply expressing hate for Jews or allowing BDS to be classified as a hate group.

(Unless you are suggesting that Jews are so self-obsessed and have such total control over public opinion that they can and will make the public think of BDS as a hate group. But such a suggestion is one of those tropy thingies, isn’t it?)

Well JeffB, here’s the one option you have that you probably won’t like:

1) Stop doing/supporting/rationalizing it and you won’t have to worry about feeling bad.

Corollary 1a) If you can’t/won’t stop killing people for no reason for generations, own it and take the heat — Jewish or not.

—

You’re either pro-slaughter or anti-slaughter. That’s the issue. Not whether pro-slaughter Jews get to feel OK about being pro-slaughter simply because they’re Jews, or to insist on some unique right to not have it pointed out that they are indeed pro-slaughter Jews.

No one has that right.

—

The rest of your comment is projection, based, as usual, upon conveniently forgetting that there is a violent Occupation going on which steals water and resources from Palestinians while it kills them and destroys their homes for no apparent reason (i.e. in pursuit of water or resources).

Whatever BDS does, non-violently, to end that is simply not even a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, whether its focus is selective or “all-Israel.” Palestinians are dying while you sit here and whine about your feelings.

Again, stop doing/supporting/rationalizing this violence, or expect to be made to feel bad about being associated with it.

Harm to a non-Zionist Jew represents a “win” for the Zio-supremacist cause. JeffB’s concern for non-Zionist Jews couldn’t ring more hollow given his belief that all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews, and given that he regularly conflates all Jews with the Zio-supremacist “Jewish State” project known as Israel.

Gosh, “JeffyB” they’ll take that deal in a hurry. Please, tell us what more does BDS need than 1st Amendment protections?

Oh, I get it! If BDS is restricted to the 1st Amendment protections, and “nothing more” I guess all your ‘2nd Amendment solutions’ will be perfectly legal? And of course, that puts them outside the 14th, too! Whoopee, have an anti-Zionist do your housework, for free!

Speaking of neo-Nazis, how come Zionists such as Victoria Nuland and Bernard-Henri levy are such staunch and enthusiastic supporters of those murderous Ukrainian neo-Nazis?

Because the Christian President and his Christian Secretary of State decided to intervene in the Russia / Ukrainian crisis on Ukraine’s side and the “neo-Nazis” are the government that represents Western Ukraine. That is besides the fact I have trouble calling a government neo-Nazi that is welcoming to Jews. It is also pretty weird one to blame on Zionists since AFAIK Zionists are on both sides. Right off the bat, most Israelis support Putin, most American Zionists support the Ukrainians.

As far as I can tell even among Christians this is ethnic not religious. Russians Jewish or Christian think Ukraine is not a legitimate nation while Western Europeans Jewish or Christian are more concerned about Nato and territorial integrity and …

Its funny in a post where you complaining about being considered along with anti-Semitic crackpots you raise an anti-Semitic crackpot theory about how the Jews are the ones secretly behind the Ukrainian / Russian war.

You are being your usual scurrilous, dishonest self. I am unaware that BDS says any “mean stuff” about Jews per se,

Of course they do, they just use the word “Zionist”. That doesn’t change things. Anymore than if someone were to go on a racist rant using the word “blacks” or “negros” or “colored” or “niggers” would be talking about the same people. Even if the person were to later clarify, as many racists do, that niggers are a special classification of blacks and “good negros” aren’t niggers and thus the rant doesn’t apply to them it would still be just as racist.

When you start accusing Zionists of stuff that having nothing to with anti-Semitism I’ll buy there is a difference. Attack Zionists for being buffonish, not showering, sexually indiscriminate and lazy and then I’d buy it isn’t anti-Semitism. Attack Zionists for a secret evil conspiracy where they seduce good Christians into working against common morality and humanity and I ain’t buying it. Whether you use “Zionist” as a euphemism for Jew or not.

What if someone doesn’t approve of specific Zionist behavior, like ethnic cleansing, illegally occupying and colonizing someone else’s land, etc., and criticizes that behavior? Since that criticism is directed at a specific subset of Jews (including some non-Jews) and not all Jews, why is that person ipso facto an antisemite?

If I can recall what I’ve learned about basic rules of logic from the learned Roha, you have said,
“All antisemities are anti-Zionists. Jose is an anti-Zionist. Ergo, Jose must also be an antisemite.

I’ll leave it to Roha to provide the Venn diagram showing why your argument and conclusion is a classic non sequitur.

They aren’t merely criticizing behavior. “Occupying and colonizing someone else’s land” is a claim of state. That other human being have lands that are theirs (generally through slaughter and conquest) but Jews can’t have lands. That’s a claim that Jews are permanently illegitimate. That is anti-Semitism. Whatever standards are applied to Jews need to be the same standards applied equally to all.

If the land is Palestinian in an individual sense then one has a right to live somewhere if they migrate or they are born there, in which case Jews qualify. If the land is Palestinian in a national sense, then a nation has the right to live on land it conquers since that’s how the Palestinians moved there.

So yes that’s anti-Semitism because you are trying to apply novel standards to Jews.

That is unless you just mean 2SS and some sort of UN absolutism where the good is whatever the UN says it is. But under that scenario the occupation isn’t illegal. Using the term “illegal”is simply telling negative lies about Jews. The settlements would be illegal but the occupation would be perfectly legal.

So nope. Your description is still well over the line.

Since that criticism is directed at a specific subset of Jews (including some non-Jews) and not all Jews, why is that person ipso facto an antisemite?

Because anti-Semitism isn’t defined as a hatred of all Jews. Lots of historic anti-Semites had no problems with Jews who converted to Christianity especially 2nd generation converts. Their problem were just those Jews who actively renounced Christ through their obstinacy. Lots of anti-Semites only hated their local Jews and had no problems with global Jews or liked some Jews in particular but hated them in general.

One of BDS’s techniques is to define anti-Semitism so strictly that nothing qualifies. Anti-Semitism is a racial, ethnic or religious hated of Jews whether it be some Jews or all Jews.

If I can recall what I’ve learned about basic rules of logic from the learned Roha, you have said, “All antisemities are anti-Zionists. Jose is an anti-Zionist. Ergo, Jose must also be an antisemite.

Nice try. Illegal behavior is illegal whether or not it is committed by Zionist Jews. I would condemn that behavior if it was committed by the Swiss, or even the Danes. You’ve again resorted to your favorite fallacy, “You’re singling out the Israelis for their bad behavior, ergo you are an antisemite.”

“Illegal behavior is illegal whether or not it is committed by Zionist Jews.”

“The Holocaust justifies the Nakba completely”, says “Jeffb”

And, we can only assume, given the evil which was the Holocaust, with plenty left over to justify, well, whatever else needs justifying. That’s up to the individual, of course. Unless, of course, there has been a more authoritative accounting

JEFFB- “Its funny in a post where you complaining about being considered along with anti-Semitic crackpots you raise an anti-Semitic crackpot theory about how the Jews are the ones secretly behind the Ukrainian / Russian war.”

That is a lot of misinformation to pack into that one sentence. My original comment was meant to show how you are more concerned with libeling BDS folks as neo-nazis than with Zionist support for the Ukrainian neo-nazis. In other words, you are much more concerned with BDS than with actual neo-nazis.

JeffB- “That is besides the fact I have trouble calling a government neo-Nazi that is welcoming to Jews.”

Interesting perspective. If it is good for the Zionist Jews, then it is good by definition. The problem with Hitler was death of the 6 million Jews, the death of 55 million Gentiles of little concern. As for being “welcoming to Jews,” surely you realize that the welcome wagon extends only so far as Jewish oligarchs and imperial neocons, such as Victoria Nuland. As for the non-Zionist Jews who may find themselves at the mercy of these thugs, they might have a different opinion. But if they are not Zionists, you don’t really care. Let me provide one of many quotes I have on this, then I will comment further.

“This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the “Moscow-Jewish mafia” and “other scum”, including gays, feminists and those on the political left.”

“These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get “the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry”. If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.”

“No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe – with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as “the minister for defeatism”. It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading “neo-con” luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney.” (John Pilger) http://johnpilger.com/articles/why-the-rise-of-fascism-is-again-the-issue

JeffB- “Of course they do, they just use the word “Zionist”.

Ah, the new anti-Semitism! Jew hatred is out, opposing political Zionism and Israeli actions are in! At least you are honest about Zionist power-seeking.

JeffB- “When you start accusing Zionists of stuff that having nothing to with anti-Semitism I’ll buy there is a difference. Attack Zionists for being buffonish, not showering, sexually indiscriminate and lazy and then I’d buy it isn’t anti-Semitism. Attack Zionists for a secret evil conspiracy where they seduce good Christians into working against common morality and humanity and I ain’t buying it. Whether you use “Zionist” as a euphemism for Jew or not.”

What to say when confronted with a demented raving such as this? Instead, I’ll leave you with a quote from one of your neocon Zionist cohorts.

“If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war… our children will sing great songs about us years from now.” (Michael Ledeen)

In other words, you are much more concerned with BDS than with actual neo-nazis.

Well yes. Neo-Nazis are marginal figures with no political influence pretty much anywhere. Anti-Zionism, is the dominant ideology towards Jews on the planet. Both of them in practice if successful would implement the final solution. Neither of them claims that’s their goal.

The same reason that as an American I’m more concerned with Al-Qaeda affiliates than I am with many other similar but far weaker groups

JeffB- “That is besides the fact I have trouble calling a government neo-Nazi that is welcoming to Jews.”

Interesting perspective. If it is good for the Zionist Jews, then it is good by definition.

How is my statement even remotely similar to your characterization of it? I questioned your fact and you proceded to just fabricate out of thin air a moral principle. Why make up stuff like that?

The problem with Hitler was death of the 6 million Jews, the death of 55 million Gentiles of little concern.

And when did I say that or anything like it?

As for being “welcoming to Jews,” surely you realize that the welcome wagon extends only so far as Jewish oligarchs and imperial neocons, such as Victoria Nuland.

Finally addressing the actual point I made. And no I don’t recognize that. The government of Ukraine went from mildly anti-Semitic to moderately philo-semitic in the revolution and that applies across the board. The .2% of the Ukrainian population that is Jewish seems happy with the change. Groups like the ADL, Human Right Watch and Amnesty report no uptick in anti-Semitic acts. No there is no problem in Ukraine.

As for the non-Zionist Jews who may find themselves at the mercy of these thugs, they might have a different opinion.

First off I didn’t say anything about Zionist vs. non-Zionist Jews. I’m not even sure what Zionism has to do with how the Ukrainian Jews are treated.

Second, there are no large pockets of non-Zionist Jews except in BDS imagination. They don’t exist. Ukrainian Jews like Jews everywhere else are almost all Zionists and growing increasingly Zionist overtime.

“This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the “Moscow-Jewish mafia” and “other scum”, including gays, feminists and those on the political left.”

You don’t identify the source of the quote. First off there was no $5b for a coup. Second the president was voted out by the parliament. He wasn’t the elected government anymore. Third the “shock troops” were the Ukrainian people. There are some anti-Semites in both the Democratic and Republican parties, yet they don’t hold power in either. Same as Ukraine.

Morever in an anti-Russian war a call against Moscow-Jewish mafia is not necessarily anti-Semtitic it could be anti-Russian.

Etc… If the new government is virulently anti-Jewish how come the Jews of Ukrainian haven’t noticed? Yes I think it is a bit weird to have a philo-semitic party use German symbols popular in Nazi times like the Wolfsangel. Absolutely using symbols like that is ground for suspicion. But they are now the governing party and mostly they seem to be using them to indicate a Western looking foreign policy: “we love Germany and the EU” not “we hate our local Jews”.

I don’t see how you can possible be with BDS and consider Hamas not anti-Semitic when a political party with lots of Jewish members and tons of Jewish support that to be the best of my knowledge has never done anything but respect the Ukrainian Jewish population as both Ukrainian and Jewish is “neo-Nazi”.

The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading “neo-con” luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century,

Ah, the new anti-Semitism! Jew hatred is out, opposing political Zionism and Israeli actions are in! At least you are honest about Zionist power-seeking.

As I pointed out, anti-Zionists are perfectly OK with slaughtering Jews in social settings and destroying Jewish religious and cultural properties. It is the same thing. Which group of pro-Zionists does all the anti-Jewish hate crimes? It is BDS BS to try and pretend there is a difference.

“Second, there are no large pockets of non-Zionist Jews except in BDS imagination.” Jeff
I completely agree with that statement. Most Jews have friends and relatives in Israel. Now one can hate one’s family, that’s very human, but it is not common.

JEFFB- “Neo-Nazis are marginal figures with no political influence pretty much anywhere. Anti-Zionism, is the dominant ideology towards Jews on the planet. Both of them in practice if successful would implement the final solution.”

What can I say to a comment like this? It is pointless to recommend you get some therapy since you obviously have chosen to abandon rationality in favor of strict adherence to Zionist ideology. Once again you have come at me with a demented raving. The ultimate goal of BDS a new “final solution?” Do you have any idea how this sounds to normal people? In addition to the important three paragraphs of John Pilger which I quoted and linked, there is a lot of information on the internet for those who are interested in the reality of the imperial destabilization in the Ukraine. This includes The Saker blog. I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Wrong, “catalan” not even close. American Jews are further than ever from Israel.
Of course, if you are going to define Jews as “people having friends and relatives in Israel” you might be right.
How are you defining “Jews” catalan?

Why don’t they just change their name to the New York Times of Zion or The Hasbara Times of New York? I get much better news from other sources. It’s gone completely pro- Zionism & pro- Apartheid Israel. I thank James North, Phil Weiss, and MW for their diligent exposure of the NYT’s increasingly overt bias.

You have to wonder, if the BDS movement is so ineffectual and marginal why are so many people wasting their breath over it? With their laws and million-dollar campaigns they disprove their own arguments.

Anti-Zionism also has a long history of successfully ethnically cleansing most of the countries on the planet that had a Jewish population of that Jewish population. Venezuela, South Africa, France and Iran being the latest 4 examples at various stages of being cleansed of their Jewish population.

Jews in America have every reason not to want to see a return to 1930s style Jew baiting.

Whether BDS would be effective against Israel is mostly irrelevant to their concerns.

Irish — good points! Imagine trying to agitate for a change in the statutes in a country where there is a “criticizing Israel is a felony” statute. Let’s see how it might go:

Citizens, I ask you to join me in demanding a change in the laws of our great country. I demand enactment of a statute which explicitly allows citizens and guests in our country to speak and to publish criticism of any country for violations of international law , where those violations have been stated by the International Court of Justice and by the UN Security Council. After all, if such speech and publication are not allowed, how will our citizens demand changes in the foreign policy and trade policy of our country in regard to any country which has been determined to be such a violator of international law? And also, how will our public be informed of these facts if such speech and publication are punishable? I refer you all to the law presently known as Section 12345 of the Penal Statutes which makes it a felony to criticize Israel.

Might scrape by. Then again, might be held a thinly-veiled criticism of Israel.

Irish — Listening to Obama, it may be that the new ” I’m not now nor have I even been a member” thing is criticism of TPP (cf. Elizabeth Warren). That is, the new “communism” is criticism of global-capitalism-protected-by-sovereignty-abandoning-treaties-and-agreements (NAFTA and friends, now the proposed TPP and TTIP). Also BDS and other perceived-to-be-anti-Israelism, but not so much!

Sadly the Mail is a hate-filled rag that supported Fascism in the 1930s and has just run despicable coverage of the UK general election.

On a brighter note, the Guardian is a fine newspaper (I would say this, being an avid reader and frequent letter-writer). Furthermore, the new editor in chief (the post for which MW un-favourite journalist Jonathan Freedland was recently tipped) is the woman who has overseen the Grauniad’s (ask any Guardian reader what that spoonerism signifies) online presence over the last few years.

> Jannine Salman, the member of Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine who made the banner, said that anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism, was the motive — and that the recent formation of a campus chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, which favors divestment, should drive home the point.

At one of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations (I think it was in Baltimore) an Israeli student turned up to join the protest…draped in an Israeli flag. Apparently several of the protestors make him feel decidedly unwelcome and he left scratching his head at their hostility. He said that he just wanted to show that a good Zionist like him supports African Americans seeking justice. No doubt DS (see above) will see this as another example of anti-Jewish sentiments in the minority community. But those demonstrators were right to be offended: how anti-racist can you be if you support racism in Israel?

Personally I think the lad was looking to provoke the reaction he got.

“Israel drops in tourism rankings due to high prices and security concerns

The 2015 Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index places Israel at 72 out of 141 countries. Spain, France and Germany top the list.

Israel has dropped to place 72 – out of 141 countries – in the 2015 Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index published by the World Economic Forum.

High prices and security concerns were the main factors behind Israel’s drop.

In the last report, published in 2013, Israel was in place 53, meaning that it has dropped a massive 19 places in two years.

In the Middle East region, Israel ranked seventh, down from third in the previous report. This time around, it ranked after the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

The main factor dragging Israel down was price competitiveness, in which it ranked 136 out of 141 countries. Also low were its rankings for environmental sustainability, safety and security and international openness. …

…”Other areas for improvement include low price competitiveness (136th) and political will to address environmental sustainability (101st)—T&T is not being developed with particular attention to the environment (110th) and there is low international commitment on environmental agreement (128th).”

The Tourism Ministry noted in its response to the report that it has increased its marketing budget to promote Israel and is planning to introduce new airline routes.

“We are working and investing in new target audiences in niche markets such as sports tourism, music and birding and we are convinced that this will bring positive results in the near future,” the ministry said in a statement.

“The Tourism Ministry works in ongoing collaboration with other relevant government ministries, for example with the Transportation Ministry to improve public transport in order to enhance the tourist experience.””

Nothing about the effects of BDS, the brutal Occupation, Apartheid, the welcoming committee at BG and checkpoints, or Israeli belligerence in the article. Nevertheless, the downward climb/spiral continues.

Exactly! Who knew that they had a Tourism Ministry anyway? Do they set the rules at the various welcoming committees?

From the article:

““The Tourism Ministry works in ongoing collaboration with other relevant government ministries, for example with the Transportation Ministry to improve public transport in order to enhance the tourist experience.””

Yeah, that’s the ticket to enhance the “tourist experience”!

Wonder if Philomène Constant’s and Bastien Anthoine’s experience would have been enhanced if only the public transportation was improved.

“The Tourism Ministry noted in its response to the report that it has increased its marketing budget to promote Israel and is planning to introduce new airline routes.”

I don’t think better promos or more airline routes will solve the problem. Maybe Israel should try to shut down the internet, since anyone thinking of taking a trip looks online for info.

First up is the warning from the U.S. State Dept, which says that U.S. citizens may be treated rudely by Israeli officials and may be denied entry to Israel when they get to Ben Gurion Airport (after buying that $1200 roundtrip fare from Seattle, which is not refundable!!!).

Then you notice information like this: ” Due to its history within the region, notably with the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims, Israel is subject to threats from terrorism within its borders. Other considerations when visiting the country are its high rate of crime and traffic accidents. Nonetheless, its medical institutions are seen as some of the finest in the region…” http://traveltips.usatoday.com/israel-safe-travel-1236.html

Then you see a warning that women visiting Israel should dress “modestly” to avoid being attacked by Jewish extremists:

“The advisory was added to the State Department’s website for travel to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. It comes in the wake of many recent incidents in which ultra-Orthodox Jewish extremists physically or verbally attacked women they said were dressed immodestly.
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women cover up everything except their faces, necks and hands.
In Beit Shemesh, a city between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, extremists have attacked religious schoolgirls on their way to school, deeming them not religious enough. For years, ultra-Orthodox Jews have also stoned cars driving in or near their neighborhoods on the Sabbath or holidays.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/israel-american-tourist-dress_n_1258426.html

I’m a nice grandma, and I do dress “modestly,” but I should cover everything but my face, neck and hands to avoid getting attacked by Jewish religious nutjobs in a U.S. client state?

And the part about fine “medical institutions” following the part about Israel’s “high rate of crime and traffic accidents” is not reassuring. But, okay, someone like me would like to visit Bethlehem, assuming I don’t already know what today’s Bethlehem is like from the discussions in my church about divesting from Israel.

But look at this: “Out of 133 destinations rated in this month’s issue of National Geographic Traveler, the West Bank’s little town of Bethlehem ranked the lowest. Sad but true, travel experts consider the birthplace of Jesus Christ to be the world’s worst travel destination, one that’s surrounded by a giant concrete wall with difficult checkpoints and generally tangled in a political rat’s nest.

“Still, for those in search of a geographically-correct Christmas, Bethlehem offers a nice dose of nostalgia served with a serious side of political pondering. It’s also a bit of a circus, like Las Vegas with Franciscan monks and machine guns. In such a place, it helps to have a guide. In lieu of a bright star shining in the east, behold ten hints for helping you navigate the dark streets that shineth:” http://gadling.com/2009/12/18/10-tips-for-visiting-bethlehem-this-christmas/

You make some good points, Kris, but you miss the point. Israel is quite content with elite tourism. When you are visited by a constant stream of Presidential candidates, Senators and aspiring politicians, mega-billionaires, anti-BDS pop stars and opinion formers, police chiefs and arms dealers, why would you wish to dilute the experience by attracting the unwashed masses of the hoi polloi?

I’m not going to visit Israel for the very reasons you post. Much as I would like to see the Christian sites in Palestine, I’m not going to put myself under the menacing control of occupation Israeli border guards, Israeli military, and Israeli religious fanatics and settlers.

I’m a secular Catholic, and enjoy going to European pilgrim sites like Rome, Canterbury, Walsingham, Fatima, Santiago de Compostela, and Rocio. (Where travellers from all religions and the non-religious are welcome). Great pilgrimage destinations with a wonderful spiritual vibe, good food, international camaraderie, music, and culture.

I’m not sure whether you believe what you are writing above. First off in the real world Israel is going about 3m tourists this year, which is up from 2.1m 5 years ago. That BTW is tourist under the World Bank definition: no compensation for the trip, less than 12 months duration, not more than once in any year. Which makes tourism an industry growing just slightly faster than the Israeli economy. That would be in population equivalent terms over 100m annual tourists There is no problem with Israeli tourism though likely it could be much larger.

I’m a nice grandma, and I do dress “modestly,” but I should cover everything but my face, neck and hands to avoid getting attacked by Jewish religious nutjobs in a U.S. client state?

If you are in their neighborhood and they ask you to, yes.

In Israel you can have a topless beach 5 blocks from a Hasidic neighborhood. You dress the way you should for the neighborhood you are in. Christian liberals mostly have no reason to go to Hasidic neighborhoods, you aren’t going to hit them accidentally though if you are one of these newagey Christian liberals then you would have reason to go, there are some exciting places for newagers in very religious Jewish neighborhoods. Otherwise if you are doing your Christian stuff dress in Hasidic parts are not going to be a problem. Though I should mention you’ll see similar standards of dress in many of the religious Christian and Muslim neighborhoods in Israel and neighboring countries. All the religious in the region dislike brazen hussies running around with naked clavicles or married women feeling free to display intimate body parts like hair. If that freaks you out, you just haven’t traveled. So you will get the same treatment in the places you do want to go to.

What I keep trying to tell you BDSers is, Israel is a foreign country, with a foreign culture and foreign values. Israel is not America. Think a bit, prep a bit. Israelis will tell you if you are acting inappropriately and as long as you aren’t a jerk about it, everything is fine.

“Las Vegas with Franciscan monks and machine guns”????? No, thanks.

Bethlehem is missable. It takes a few hours at most you see a nice church and you leave. Tourism in the West Bank it is is depressingly underdeveloped. It is kinda caught in a bind. There is no way for the Palestinian tourist economy to flourish without extensive coordination and cooperation with Israel, which is normalization.

Conversely the Christian stuff in “occupied” Jerusalem is quite good and Israel is helping develop those areas. It is still somewhat old fashioned and underdeveloped which IMHO is a plus, you get to experience what religious tourists in the 1950s would see in most places not the way sites are designed today. The museum displays in Israel are excellent and there is almost always full English. I often find them better than their American equivalents.

You are boycotting Israel, so you are never going. I met a lot of Christians who were having a great time there. You just have to accept you aren’t seeing the Basilica in Minneapolis.

||Kris: @JeffB: “Tourism in the West Bank it is is depressingly underdeveloped. It is kinda caught in a bind.”

“Kinda caught in a bind”? ||

The rapists’ victims are also “caught in a bind”. They’d love to be set free to develop their educations and other skills, but the rapist – a “moral beacon” of a man who says he’s better than murderers and rapists – won’t hear of it.

Y’see, he claims he is entitled by the words in his diary and by his frequent and fervent prayers to “self-(self-)determine himself” in his victims. And, anyway, other men have sex with women (sure, it’s consensual, but let’s not talk about that right now), so to deny him the right that all other men have would be anti-rapist.

In my experience, even covering up everything “except face, neck and hands” is not quite good enough. And I’m talking 1984 here, I don’t recall any warnings from the State Dept. to dress ‘modestly’. Which, regardless, I was. Being mid-November and cool, I was wearing long, fleece-lined khaki pants, mocassins with socks and a long sleeve cashmere sweater. Nevertheless, as I walked in Mea Sharim, a young woman approached me and said “next time you come here, wear a skirt”. I must admit she wasn’t aggressive or threatening, still I was taken aback; what if it had been hot and I had been wearing a sleeveless top? Or a short “skirt?”

JeffB: “That BTW is tourist under the World Bank definition: no compensation for the trip” These World Bank economists and Israeli immigration staff must be very clever – how can they possibly tell whether a visiting Senator or Presidential candidate has visited Israel simply because they will be immensely-well compensated in political funding in return for holding their noses and ignoring their consciences by visiting you lovely home from home.

These World Bank economists and Israeli immigration staff must be very clever – how can they possibly tell whether a visiting Senator or Presidential candidate has visited Israel simply because they will be immensely-well compensated in political funding in return for holding their noses and ignoring their consciences by visiting you lovely home from home.

1) There aren’t many politicians.
2) Donations to their campaign aren’t compensation.

You don’t like the law regarding how campaigns are run, change it. But that has nothing to do with Israel.

Well, they are going to feel it badly. They depend on tourism for their economy, and since they have decided to keep the occupation going, periodically attack Gaza or another neighbor, and keep the “we are under existential threat” narrative going, no one in their right mind will want to visit zio land. Perhaps this might make them realize the folly of their ways…who am I kidding?

Bibi boy must realize his war mongering has consequences too, and this is one of them.

Nah. They don’t give a rat’s ass about non-Jewish tourism. They figure that with more than 90% Zionism supporters they won’t really need the others, and it shows in the way tourists are treated. Those masochist babies will keep going there to spend their dollars in the Ziobubble until it comes out of their eyes.
Until such time, that is, when a serious risk of bodily harm reminds them of the folly of their ways –leaving the suicidal morons and the rest scampering back home.

The consequences of warmaking were well-known all right to the genocidal Zionists of 1947 and they used it very successfully. Putting their civilian population in harm’s way is one of the Zionists’ essential methods for exacting obedience and solidarity from the new immigrants. By keeping the civilians constantly under physical threat they get full approval for their jingoism and racism, no matter the political differences.

At 3M visits/year, ranks 57th of 141 countries (p. 363) despite the border security, the violence and the relatively high prices. (Ranks 83rd by population, p.361.)

In the ME/NA region (p.18), yeah, “only” 7th of 16, but.. the report omits 3 countries in the region (also) at war. Also, 5 of the 6 countries that rank higher are oil monarchies that spent gazillions of petrodollars on splendiferous tourist-centric infrastructure.

Thanks, Neil. You are right, given the complete disregard for the safety of Jews and Palestinians by the GOI, and it’s penchant for provoking violence, and its perverted political psychology (you know, “the Holocaust justifies…”) when the collapse comes, it may be so tragic and violent everyone will be sorry for ever having made it a subject for humor or repartee.

Yes, it’s about “openness.” That’s why Saudi Arabia, which has an official policy of prohibiting Jewish tourists, is higher than Israel. The truth is that Saudi and Oman are open gas stations, so they are ranked higher in terms of a more welcoming business environment, and Israel is a place with limited water per capita, so it is ranked lower for environmental sustainability. Things like gas at a few cents a gallon tend to skew indicators like low price competitiveness. The boycott of Israel by Arab dictatorships also plays a role in these rankings, because Israel hasn’t signed many bilateral agreements in the region. These things seem not to bother companies like Intel and Apple. It’s almost idiotic to even put Saudi Arabia on a list like this. One can’t tour Saudi Arabia unless one is a religious tourist.

In 2013, there were 3.54 million tourists in Israel, a record. In 2014, despite a month-long war, the decrease was all of 1%. So I doubt anyone in Israel is losing sleep over this report.

“As for your lie that “… Saudi Arabia, which has an official policy of prohibiting Jewish tourists,…””

It is no lie. Just ask any Jew who has had to go to Saudi on business; let’s just say that there are a lot of “Unitarians” travelling to Saudi who are not really Unitarians. At times, the Saudis have publicized this rule, at others not, but it’s very much in force, despite what they say. This is also true, from your source: “[P]ublic observance and proselytism of religions other than Islam are forbidden under punishment of death for former muslims.”

I’ll simply point out the hypocrisy of people who style themselves as anti-colonialist talking up the “positive Saudi business environment.” It’s just too rich.

“A great many Jewish students too are deeply troubled by the right wing government and behavior of Israel” – Mark Thomason

Well, they’re mistaken. The problem isn’t the right wing government and Israel’s behavior. Israel doesn’t do ethnic cleansing, Israel IS ethnic cleansing. These Jewish students are just defending the fallback position, whereby Israel would behave differently, but still be the Jewish state.

My impression is that their battle against BDS is more chaotic than solid. By the end of the year shouting “hate” is blunted, as “anti-Semite” already is. What’s left then? Self-mutilation? (But in governmental levels they are working too, think TIPP).

Anti-Zionism also has a long history of successfully ethnically cleansing most of the countries on the planet that had a Jewish population of that Jewish population. Venezuela, South Africa, France and Iran being the latest 4 examples at various stages of being cleansed of their Jewish population.”

I have no idea what you are going on about. It is Netanyahu who is telling French Jews to leave France and come to Israel to get incinerated by an Iranian bomb. As for Venezuela, South Africa and Iran the Jews there are not treated as badly as the Palestinians in Israel.

In fact show me one country that treats its Jews as badly as Israel treats its Palestinians.

That’s not a response. I gave you 4 countries look up their flow of Jewish population. If you choose to remain ignorant deliberately and continue to say bad stuff about Jewish response to anti-Zionism you are now knowingly lying.

In fact show me one country that treats its Jews as badly as Israel treats its Palestinians.

There aren’t any. That’s what Israel has done for us. It prevents anti-Semitism from getting out of hand, when it does the Jews leave. Now if you mean historically, virtually all of them that had Jews treated them far worse than Israel treats Palestinians.

Anti Zionism ethnically cleansed Jews from the world? Well that’s news. I thought that Jews leaving their native lands and going to Israel was what Zionists wanted. But In none of the countries you cited are the governments deliberately driving their Jews out. Unlike Israel their politicians do not routinely malign them, or appoint ministers of justice who advocate war on the entire Jewish community. In none of the governments you cited are the rulers targeting their Jewish citizens with vile threats and discriminatory laws. Most leave because of economic issues and not because of anti Semitism, because the presence of Israel keeps it from getting out of hand, according to you. Too bad those pesky Palestinians won’t get with the program.

|| JeffB: … That’s what Israel has done for us. It prevents anti-Semitism from getting out of hand, when it does the Jews leave. ||

1. If anti-Semitism in a given country gets so bad that its citizens who happen to be Jewish leave their homeland, Israel has failed to prevent anti-Semitism from getting out of hand.

2. The solution to acts of injustice and immorality is justice, accountability and equality, universally and consistently applied. The solution was not, is not and never should be the establishment of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and/or supremacist state of any kind.

The beloved (and beloved to BDSers) President of Venezuela in 2012 argued his opponent (Henrique Capriles Radonski) in the election was unfit to govern. Not because he was Jewish he’s a solid Catholic, but because some of his grandparents were Jewish. Judaism is for the Venezuelan left a racial disease inherited just like for the Nazis. And the western far left is perfectly cool with that.

So don’t tell me the government is not deliberately driving the Jews out. That is precisely what they are doing. Whipping up hated and discrimination against the Jewish population, and including in that anyone associated with Judaism so as to maximize social dislocation.

And of course that means the Jews of Venezuela were fleeing the economy. That was all they had to do, make life bad and the Jews leave. Had the Jews had no where else to go, Chavez et al would have had to up the hatred.

___

In Iran there isn’t need for incitement. Jews are simply ineligible for most positions including all judgeships. They suffer constant attack and discrimination. Nothing like what the Bahai suffer (and Eljay since you also responded let’s call this example of Iran vs. the Bahai and you not calling Iran a “Persian Shia supremacist” every single time you mention them reason 1200 that your claims to having any interest in universal norms is a lie) which you Iranian apologists don’t care about either.

___

South Africa there has been tremendous private crime and violence with no state intervention. That ethnic cleaning works very similar to the price tag attacks in Israel. No it hasn’t risen to the level of Central American death squads because it hasn’t had to, the Jews are just leaving.

As for France we are too early to see where it goes.

So don’t tell me what these countries aren’t doing. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Finally Eljay if the people of these countries want to drive their Jewish population away I think that shows pretty clearly that Iran, South Africa and Venezuela were not their homelands. They were not part of the national body. Your idea of a bureaucratic citizenship was rejected by the people of those countries and their leadership in favor or a strong national identity. But someone it only concerns you for one country.

Wow, that’s a lot of blather just to contradict your own assertion that Israel has prevented anti-Semitism from getting out of hand.

|| … (and Eljay since you also responded let’s call this example of Iran vs. the Bahai and you not calling Iran a “Persian Shia supremacist” every single time you mention them reason 1200 that your claims to having any interest in universal norms is a lie) … ||

I already condemn Iran for being something other than a secular and democratic state. If it is true that Iran defines itself as a “Persian Shia State”, I condemn it for being a supremacist “Persian Shia State”. There – you can stop sucking your thumb now.

|| … Finally Eljay if the people of these countries want to drive their Jewish population away I think that shows pretty clearly that Iran, South Africa and Venezuela were not their homelands. … ||

The hostility does not change the reality that those countries are the homelands of their respective Jewish (and non-Jewish) citizens.

The hostility shows very clearly that those countries are hostile to their respective Jewish citizens.

The hostility is unjust and immoral, and those countries must be held to account.

The hostility does not entitle the Jewish citizens of those – and of other – countries to a oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

|| … Your idea of a bureaucratic citizenship was rejected by the people of those countries and their leadership in favor or a strong national identity. But someone it only concerns you for one country. ||

We shall see. I want you to talk about how immoral all those other’s country’s populations are each and every-time you mention them. And how the state is immoral. So far in this post you mentioned Iran multiple times without discussing Persian supremacy or Shia supremacy. I’m having a hard time seeing an even standard being applied.

|| … So far in this post you mentioned Iran multiple times without discussing Persian supremacy or Shia supremacy. ||

Prior to this post, I mentioned Iran precisely twice in this thread and here’s what I said:

I already condemn Iran for being something other than a secular and democratic state. If it is true that Iran defines itself as a “Persian Shia State”, I condemn it for being a supremacist “Persian Shia State”. There – you can stop sucking your thumb now.

When MW becomes a site focused on the injustices and immorality of Iran, I will condemn Iran accordingly and not excuse its actions on the basis that it’s not as bad as Israel, Saudi Arabia and African “hell-holes”.

|| … I’m having a hard time seeing an even standard being applied. ||

Of course you do: You’re a Zio-supremacist and your hatred blinds you. :-(

PHIL- One of your quotes: “Jewish students and their parents are intensely apprehensive and insecure about this movement,” said Mark Yudof, a former president of the University of California system. “I hear it all the time: Where can I send my kids that will be safe for them as Jews?”

First a quote, then a comment.

“It is a fact that American anti-Semitism currently is at a historic low by most essential yardsticks. Hostility towards Jews, as measured in opinion polls, has dropped to what some social scientists consider a virtual zero point….Government action against Jews, the staple of European anti-Semitism for centuries, is almost inconceivable in this country….By contrast, the percentage of Jews who tell pollsters that anti-Semitism is a “serious problem” in America nearly doubled during the course of the 1980s, from 45 percent in 1983 to almost 85 percent in 1990.” (p6, “Jewish Power,” J.J.Goldberg)

Goldberg’s analysis confirms Norman Finkelstein’s thesis that following the June 1967 war “the memory of the Nazi extermination” came to serve- in Evron’s words- “as a powerful tool in the hands of the Israeli leadership and Jews abroad.” Two essential themes emerge: 1) Holocaust uniqueness and 2) “irrational, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews.” He notes that “Neither of these dogmas figured at all in the public discourse before the June 1967 war….” (p41, “The Holocaust Industry,” Norman Finkelstein)

It seems fairly clear to me that we are dealing with Zionist manufactured sense of victimhood following the June 1967 war. This serves as a Jewish Zionist core ideological belief which has utility both as a means of achieving internal Jewish Zionist organizational cohesion and as an instrument of intimidation. The never ending cinematic tale of the Holocaust and eternal Jewish suffering is but one example of the establishment of this particular doctrinal point of reference and unassailable truth. In this regard, it should be noted that both the reclassification of anti-Semitism from Jew hatred to something which includes criticism of Israel and the anticipated blowback from this ongoing demonization of Gentiles is part of the Zionist strategy. After all, PERCEIVED anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism.

“Goldberg’s analysis confirms Norman Finkelstein’s thesis that following the June 1967 war “the memory of the Nazi extermination” came to serve- in Evron’s words- “as a powerful tool in the hands of the Israeli leadership and Jews abroad.”

Big step backwards into self-serving fantasy for American Jews at that time. That was the way I felt it back then. Really scary, and now, their kids, who will pay for it.

FYI, J.J. Goldberg’s book is from 1997. You’re a bit out of date there.

“In this regard, it should be noted that both the reclassification of anti-Semitism from Jew hatred to something which includes criticism of Israel and the anticipated blowback from this ongoing demonization of Gentiles is part of the Zionist strategy.”

YAWN. Did someone criticize you, Keith, dear? Is that why you feel, like Fox News, that gentiles are being “demonized” by the Jews?

Is that why you feel, like Fox News, that gentiles are being “demonized” by the Jews?

i wasn’t aware fox news was promoting the concept gentiles were being demonized by jews. do tell!

but what keith mentions (quoting goldberg one presumes) about “irrational, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews” is nothing new. glick has made this allegation in numerous videos and i think we’re all familiar with the promotion of the idea anti semitism is rampant or growing or whatever (it’s invasive all over the press and a mainstay of zionist propaganda) at the exclusion of bigotry towards others which is not given the same sort of attention in the press.

in an environment where islamophobia is promoted (often/generally by the same cohorts promoting the anti semitism theme) and african americans are routinely gunned down in the streets by law enforcement (jews are not subject to this kind of racism certainly) how someone can deny there’s a demonization campaign going on — well, i find it startling. or are you implying hasbara central is suggesting all this anti semitism is coming from self hating jews? otherwise, it’s very much a demonization of gentiles, non zionists in particular. protesting against israel’s apartheid policies is not anti semitism. conflating the two, which is a campaign supported by millions of dollars, is demonization.

HOPHMI- “Is that why you feel, like Fox News, that gentiles are being “demonized” by the Jews?”

The Zionist post June 1967 dogma of “irrational, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews,” (quoting Finkelstein) is most certainly a demonization of Gentiles. Dare I compare it to a blood libel? And we are not talking about Jews in general, we are talking about ZIONIST Jews. Mooser is right to hold you Zionist Jews to account for trying to hide behind the skirts of Judaism.

So what? Caroline Glick is a far-right op-ed columnist. She’s not the sum total of Israel.

#fail. no one here, certainly not myself, claimed these allegations represented the “sum total” of israel (keith wrote “we are not talking about Jews in general”). if you’d like to argue this meme doesn’t exist, have at it. you’re the one who insinuated gentiles being “demonized” by the Jews doesn’t happen. what’s the point? and i still don’t get your reference to fox news. did they claim that?

please explain yourself. it’s a well worn meme, everyone knows that. doesn’t mean it’s all invasive and no one claimed it was.

” i think we’re all familiar with the promotion of the idea anti semitism is rampant or growing”

triple yawn. anti semitism definitely exists, all better now? and we all note your evasion/diversion; the topic i was discussing, which you commented on, was “gentiles are being “demonized” by the Jews”.

another hasbara fail by hops. you’re such a transparently lousy arguer. one ad hominem set up after another.

edit, and i’d like to point out one more thing. when glick made the statement at the jpost journo conference that all europeans were anti semites (paraphrasing, i think she attributed a disease to them obsessive compulsive jew hatred or something) many many right wing blogs lauded her diatribe and reran the video on their blogs. so this is not rare in the least. you want to carve out this space of “moderate” zionists, so be it. i’ll be the first to disagree that all zionists (jstreet sorts etc) are compulsive demonizers of gentiles. they aren’t, ok. but you take the cake trying to frame me as in the same comment as trying to distance yourself and others like you from the charge.

take a break and regroup, you’re sounding very hypocritical today hops.

The really breathtaking lie that floored me when I read the article was the claim that the 2014 Gaza conflict “killed hundreds of Palestinians.” Try about 2,200 Palestinians, most of them innocent civilians. Over 1 in every 1,000 Palestians in the Gaza Strip was killed, and if most of the deaths were in Gaza City, that would be about 1 in every 250 Palestinians.

And the killing of innocent people and the destruction of their houses is a known goal of the Israeli government, to keep “costs” high for Palestinian terrorists.

The article quoted UCLA senior Natalie Charney as saying, “Part of what they are hating is central to who I am and what I stand for.” Injustice is central to who Ms. Charney is and what Ms. Charney stands for?

If you read Ms. Charney’s other writing online, this sounds of a piece with other arguments that she makes–that BDS isn’t against the West Bank occupation. No, it’s against all of Israel, all of Israel’s Jewish population, all of the Jewish people, period.

I would wish that Ms. Charney and other supporters of Israel would have as a goal the fair and decent treatment of Palestinians, actions in accordance with international law, and desisting from war crimes.

Ms. Charney speaks elsewhere of Israel’s “vibrant democracy.” It’s not actually a democracy if it’s only available for a privileged subset of the population.

I would wish that it would be possible to talk with Ms. Charney and the other people interviewed for this article and get them to think reasonably, but I don’t think it’s possible. Ms. Charney and others’ straw-man arguments about BDS people who are out to “deligitimize” Israel, period, are not psychologically normal. They are extremist arguments, immune to reason.

I would wish that Ms. Charney and other supporters of Israel would have as a goal the fair and decent treatment of Palestinians, actions in accordance with international law, and desisting from war crimes.

We do support fair and decent treatment. In fact I’d go further. I want the full incorporation of Palestinians into the Israeli nation including my intermarriage so that their descendants are fully Israeli. I want the descendants of today’s Jewish population and the descendants of the Palestinians to be the same people and to be the governing population of Israel. It is BDS not Zionism that is opposed to fair and decent treatment of the population. Concepts like “occupied territory” presuppose a permanent racial definition of land that precludes peaceful interchanges. That’s your side not ours.

As for desisting from war crimes Zionists aim for no war. They aim to eliminate the war crimes by eliminating the war. They’ve been successful with some subgroups of Palestinians and mostly the ” war crimes” have declined since the 1950s. So Zionists both claim and have a track record of success. Not a perfect record however.

Now international law is a different matter. Neither BDS nor Zionism supports international law. International law is firmly a 2SS. BDS is a one state movement despite their protests to the contrary. BDS as much as Zionism ignores UN resolutions and policies they disagree with. So when BDSers talk about International Law they don’t mean the law as it exists between nations but some sort of theoretical law.

I would wish that it would be possible to talk with Ms. Charney and the other people interviewed for this article and get them to think reasonably

They are capable of thinking reasonably. But they are going to insist on full equality of Jews. That means that if you take any argument you would make against Israel and apply it analogy to say France it had better be a standard that holds up. Most anti-Israeli positions implicitly assume that Jews are an illegitimate people and thus Israel and illegitimate nation. That’s not something they going to agree to. That’s not thinking “reasonably” that’s supporting anti-Jewish racism which lies at the heart of BDS.

This is a recurring issue that does not sound right to me. Phil Weiss: [The NYT] reporters ignore all the Jews who support BDS.

First of all conflating “Jewishness” with “Zionism/Israel” is a rhetorical setup by Zionists, and a dangerous one. Whether Jewishness is the religion or the descend does not matter in this (Though to keep thinking clear, safest ground is to treat the word “Jews” meaning the descend, which triggers all racism warnings. That’s good and sane. When Jewishness is religious only, that can be made clear for further reasoning). Making Jews responsible for Israel, and claiming all Jews for Israel is racist (the anti-Semitic variant).

To prevent practising this racism and responding to a racist trap, internalize that the words “Jews” in a topic about “Zionism/Israel” is the red flag. Check this: a proven reasoned connection is always missing, it is always a connection by association only. Treat this as trolling: do not engage. Maybe one can point to this error of logic. (You can see and test this check-the-troll in the posts these contributions. Note how the accusation of racism (anti-Semitism) is never substantiated). This about the Zionist conflating Jews and Israel falsely.

Second: Do Not Do This Yourself, not even Mondoweiss writers. Never use someone being a Jew as an argument for or against Zionism/Israel, and BDS in this case. The logic “There are also Jews who support BDS” is just as racist: tying the quality of the argument to a descent. You fell into the trap of racism NYT and Netanyahu set up every time (and of course they don’t know about their own racism, when it’s about Jews).

In short: 1. Conflating “Jewishness” and “Zionism/Israel” is racist. Always. 2. Zionists do this easily without being bothered. It’s a trap and it’s racist, false reasoning. 3. Do not do that yourself. Ascribing properties to a person simply for being Jewish is racist.

“We know all too well, our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians” ~ Nelson Mandela

Why is there a corporate controlled US media “attack” of those that support human rights and equality?

What is Fascism? By Laura Dawn Lewis

6. CONTROLLED MASS MEDIA –
Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.

Criticising and trying to change behaviour is not the same as hating the doer of the deeds, is it? Think of a parent correcting a child. It is surely time for defenders of Zionism to have a good hard look at Israel’s behaviour and address that behaviour rather than whether they are hated or not. The two things are not and never have been synonymous. It is ducking the issue, lazy and dishonest to keep saying: “everyone who criticises Israel is an anti-semite/jew-hater”. Better to ask yourselves what are the boycotters trying to achieve? Address the possibility many of them are trying as much to save Israel from itself, as well as make life fair for the Palestinians, and create proper safe, secure living for all in the region. Why are the boycotters doing this? Because they want this injustice to stop and in the main, they care about both sides!

Criticising and trying to change behaviour is not the same as hating the doer of the deeds, is it?

No of course not. But that’s not what BDS is about. Were Israel to stop doing the deed that would be a BDS failure not a success.

Take for example Gaza. The Israelis in the 1950s through the 1970s had to war against the Arab states and terrorize the Palestinians community in those states into not attacking Israeli territory and peoples (including abroad). Israel was successful and as a result the Arab states that host refugees have in practice (though often not on paper) rejected the right of the Palestinian’s in their territory to resist occupation. Several generations have passed, those Palestinians have in many cases interbred or moved and there simply isn’t the concentrations there used to be either. That’s a successful end to the border violence regarding Israel.

It is entirely possible in a decade or so, the Gazans will similar accept the border with Israel and no longer believe in practice (though likely not in theory) that they have a right to shoot missiles into Israel because Jews are occupiers …. There won’t be violence across that border.

BDS would consider that peace to disaster. That would be failure of BDS not success. Peace without the fall of Zionism is unacceptable to BDS. It is not about hating what Israel does it is about hating Israel’s existence.

lazy and dishonest to keep saying: “everyone who criticises Israel is an anti-semite/jew-hater

It is lazy and dishonest to pretend that Zionist say that. No one argues that everyone who criticizes Israel is a Jew hater. Zionists themselves, including rightwing Zionist criticize Israel. What they do say is that anyone who holds Israel / Jews to a standard totally unlike the standard they hold other nations to is a Jew hater. You want to argue, argue with the actual claim not the straw man.

Address the possibility many of them are trying as much to save Israel from itself –

OK I’ll address it: it is a ridiculous possibility, the chance is close to 0. A bunch of screaming hateful delegitimizes are not interested in Israel’s or Jew’s best interests. Anymore than your typical Klansmen is interested in saving the blacks from the evils of their sinful lifestyle.

Israel is not a danger to itself. Left to its own devices without outside interference Israel would quickly negotiate with the Palestinian minority solutions that make sense for the region and the people involved and not those designed to appeal to European leftists. Most of what the Palestinian non-rejectionists Israel could grant in exchange for peace. The rejectionists faction of Palestinians would be pushed out suppressed and discredited and there would be peace.

Israel does not need saving from itself. . What Israel needs is to be treated like other minor countries so that when there is news about Israel the host needs to explain what a Jew is and where Israel is. What Israel needs is the rest of the world to ignore them and them govern their country like anywhere else. They don’t need to be saved from anything. They are fine and thriving.

Why are the boycotters doing this? Because they want this injustice to stop and in the main, they care about both sides!

If they cared about both sides they wouldn’t be:

a) Liars about history
b) Liars about policy
c) Hateful and rude to Jews, rather they would be trying to convince them of things since after all it is the Jews who run Israel and have to agree to implement the plans that the boycotters supposedly want implemented.
d) Would be in favor of normalization not in favor of denormalization since trade and interaction tends to lead to peace while hostility tends to bread hostility.
e) Would be declaring their joint solidarity rather than advocating an oppressor / oppressed good / evil dichotomy.

|| JeffB: BDS would consider that peace to disaster. That would be failure of BDS not success. Peace without the fall of Zionism is unacceptable to BDS. ||

Zio-supremacism is injustice and immorality. “Peace” without justice, accountability and equality is a disaster. Zio-supremacism must go; Israel doesn’t have to.

(The rapist doesn’t have to die in order for the victim to receive liberty and justice, but he does have to free his victim and be held accountable for his crimes. Of course, he’d prefer just to beat her unconscious and have “peace”.)

|| It is not about hating what Israel does it is about hating Israel’s existence. ||

For almost 70 years and with impunity, Israel has been stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land and oppressing, torturing and killing Palestinians but, gosh, it ain’t never done nuthin’ wrong to nobody, so why does everybody hate it? Aggressor-victimhood is such a tough gig… :-(

OK assume Israel agreed tomorrow to accountability. What would it look like? How many Israelis need to die or be imprisoned? A dozen, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands? Be specific?

For example in the 2008-9 Gaza war about 20k Israelis participated. Most of them are still alive. How many do you kill? In 2012 it was closer to 75k and only some overlap with those 20k. Then there is Lebanon. Then there are the 650k people living in the settlements most of whom are children.

So what does “accountability” and “justice” look like? Be specific. Who dies, who lives, and who goes to prison for how long?

As for the comments about 70 years… are you
a) Arguing for racial collective guilt. So that for example nations today can be punished for things their ancestors did (so for example the Israelis could claim to be punishing for the Palestinians for the invasion of Western Arabian peninsula).

b) Planning to dig up the dirt from where the dead bodies (remember these are Jews so no embalming which means their corpses are in much worse conditions) and do something to them.

If not (a) or (b) who cares about what happened 70 years ago? The people who did it are dead. The people that they did it to are dead. Why harp on it?

@JeffB
I’ve read what you say in reply to my comment and I am utterly amazed by you! All I can say to you in reply, is ‘take your blinkers off’. Whatever excuses/justifications/misrepresentations you come up with, the bottom line is the Government and the military of the State of Israel is, and has been since 1967, breaking countless International Laws on a daily basis. No other country is occupying, and mistreating the occupied, as Israel is doing. There is no excuse whatever for this.
Do you ever stop to consider the feelings of non-Zionist Jews about what is being done by Israel and the way it reflects on them? Painful as it is for supporters of the actions of Israel, both inside Israel and outside, sooner or later there will be a day of reckoning. The tide is turning in world opinion. Politicians everywhere want to be re-elected and they follow (albeit slowly) the will of the people. Now we have instant and constant communication – the days of hiding what is being done or attempting to justify it are numbered.
If Israel wants normalisation and security – the answer is in front of them … a child could work it out. The BDS movement is no more than what was applied to South Africa between 1960 and 1990 and resulted eventually, in the fall of Apartheid and the release and election of Mandela. Though currently the ‘standard Israel is being held to’ by the US, the UK and the UN (because the UN is manipulated by the permanent members) is woefully LOWER than any other country would be allowed, this will not continue for much longer, as it wasn’t in South Africa. A day dawned when the South African Government found it was standing alone – no one was on its side, listening to its justifications anymore – nightmare! but it concentrated the mind of the SA government, didn’t it?
If you and your cronies think you can buck history and keep this up for ever – you are in for a rude awakening! Israel’s best interests are served by Israel learning to live in peace with its neighbours, without stealing land from, or abusing, its neighbours. The rest of us can see this – it amazes me that you can’t!
As for your ranting – I suggest a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel till you feel a bit more normal ☺

At a minimum, it would involve Israel:
– ending its occupation of non-Israeli territory (i.e., territory outside of its / Partition borders);
– repatriating its refugees;
– making reparations as required; and
– arresting, charging and prosecuting all suspected war criminals.

(And before you get your panties into a knot, yes, I would also expect the government of a new Palestinian state to repatriate its refugees, make reparations as required and arrest, charge and prosecute all suspected war criminals.)

|| How many Israelis need to die or be imprisoned? A dozen, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands? Be specific? ||

No-one needs to die. As for how many need to be imprisoned, that depends on how many are charged and successfully prosecuted.

|| For example in the 2008-9 Gaza war about 20k Israelis participated. Most of them are still alive. How many do you kill? ||

What is it with you and your desire to murder people? No-one has to die.

|| Who dies, who lives … ||

Again with the killing! You are one sick puppy.

|| As for the comments about 70 years… ||

It’s a very clear indication that Israel didn’t just commit (war) crimes 70 years ago – it’s been committing (war) crimes for almost 70 years, and it shows no sign of wanting to stop committing (war) crimes.

Well stated Ejay. I was going to ask JeffB what the hell is this fascination with all this killing and murder that apparently must happen before any agreement can be reached

It must be because in JeffB ‘s world the moment the Palestinians are finally set free from this ongoing and brutal occupation, the first thing they are going to do is decapitate every single Israeli Jew. That’s what he might actually believe and this is an argument I have heard SO MANY times. Israel has dehumanised the Palestinians over decades but it is the Israelis that have dehumanised themselves instead. All the Palestinians really want is their basic human rights and dignity. They crave to lead a normal life of freedom

All that needs to happen is for the Zionists to give them that chance.

You ducked the question about how many and what happens to them focusing on the execution part. It is not me who established that war criminals are often executed that was Nuremberg. You don’t like the executions don’t use the term.

So getting back to the point and not your transparent nonsense attacks on me to distract. Who gets convicted is a question not of some neutral system but policy. How many are being targeted. And that’s what you didn’t answer. If the answer is you have no idea what-so-ever that all this talk of “accountability” is simply meaningless sloganeering then just admit to yourself. You don’t have a vision for after, because in reality of course BDS’s positions are entirely unworkable.

The amount to:
Society agrees to boycott, divestment. Then governments agree to sanctions. This cycle plays out. The Jews don’t like it and capitulate to demands that no country would ever accept without losing multiple wars (BTW including South Africa that did lose multiple wars). Then something magic happens with the Jews and Palestinians work together on their common society, even though they don’t have a common society today. So unlike the 1920s and 30s where the British were trying exactly what you all aim for, and from a position of strength, suddenly it works. The result of power-sharing in Palestine is not Iraq/Syria with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and everybody is happy living in their undifferentiated secular democratic state.

That of course doesn’t include the BDSers who really hate the Jews and don’t want that happy ending. Who by “accountability” really mean something like the “accountability” that happened to white Africa. They also like to be vague.

|| JeffB: @Eljay You ducked the question about how many and what happens to them focusing on the execution part. ||

I didn’t duck anything. You asked me how many people have to die, and I answered that no-one has to die.

|| So getting back to the point and not your transparent nonsense attacks on me to distract. ||

I never left the point. And I did not attack you – I was simply commented on your obsession with murder and death, neither of which is required in order for justice to be served.

|| Who gets convicted is a question not of some neutral system but policy. How many are being targeted. And that’s what you didn’t answer. ||

There is no possible way for me to know how many people will be convicted given that I don’t know how many will be arrested, how many will be charged, how many will be tried and how effectively they will be prosecuted.

This does not mean that criminals should not be arrested, tried and – if found guilty – convicted.

“This does not mean that criminals should not be arrested, tried and – if found guilty – convicted.”

“eljay” aren’t you forgetting something? Remember, JeffyB is “The Justifier!” He is justified in his substitution of empty ritual for faith, and for any other goddam thing he can think of, as far as that goes.
Oh. My. Freakin. G-d. Playing-hopskotch-on-a-PogoStick!! Is it the repetition, the empty enactment, of Jewish ritual which keeps JeffyB’s ‘justification’ intact? Whooo-boy!!

“If not (a) or (b) who cares about what happened 70 years ago? The people who did it are dead. The people that they did it to are dead. Why harp on it?”

You are so right, “JeffyB”. The Holocaust is over and gone 60 years ago, and can no longer be used to justify anything, and should be forgotten about as soon as possible. Why harp on it?
Oh, what’s that, JeffyB? You are saying the Holocaust effected Jews, and that’s different?

” Nobody else has to die “. With a sincere and meaningful apology.
I, for one , would accept a true and heartfelt apology….. and some restitution.
I’m willing to wager that 99.9% of displaced and dispossessed Palestinians would be willing to accept .
I believe we do value honour and dignity far more than revenge . “Nobody else has to die “!!

“In line with being the most enthusiastically pro-Israel government in the world, Ottawa is now bidding to become the world’s most anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) government, too, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported Monday.

Following a series of statements by cabinet ministers pledging vigilance against the country’s many pro-BDS groups (mainly aligned with churches, universities and unions), the spokeswoman for Canada’s chief law enforcement official pointed out to CBC recently that the country has some of the toughest laws against “hate crime” on earth.

It was the latest statement from the government promising a crackdown on the BDS movement, which includes university groups, churches and labor unions.

In January, then-foreign minister John Baird signed a protocol with Israel pledging to fight BDS, which he called “the new face of anti-Semitism.” Shortly afterward, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, in an address at the United Nations, characterized boycotts of Israel as anti-Semitic hate speech and violence, comparing them to the murderous attacks at Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket that had just taken place. Blaney said Canada would take a policy of “zero tolerance” toward the BDS movement, a statement that has been echoed by other cabinet ministers.

Last year the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper expanded the law against hate speech to include attacks based on a person’s “national origin,” not just his race or religion, as the law had previously stated. …

…Michael Vonn, an attorney for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, said attempts to prosecute Canadians for supporting BDS would not survive a court challenge. He described the government’s moves as “a tool to go after critics of Israel.”

CUPE president Paul Moist wondered, “Is it now a criminal offence to walk around with a sign saying close all the settlements, Israel out of occupied territories?”

As things stand, the most anti-BDS country in the world appears to be, believe it or not, France. The so-called left-wing, pro-Palestinian country has convicted upwards of 20 BDS activists for “discrimination” based on “national origin.” Pro-Israel activists are pushing for a similar policy in Belgium. But from the tone of its government officials, Canada aims to become leader of the pack.”

Just, CUPE BTW is the Canadian Postal Union Employees, the first North-American union to get on the BDS bus. These 51,000 guys are not averse to shutting down the Canadian postal system if the government starts leaning on them. Can’t say the same of the 200,000 Canadian United Church members that currently boycott settlement products. The new C-51 law will surely be challenged.

The federal NDP as well as Trudeau’s Liberals are backing Harper on C-51 and both federal leaders are trying to capitalize on the provincial PC loss but Albertans are giving both the cold shoulder. Harper will probably remain the leader after this October’s federal elections.

“As things stand, the most anti-BDS country in the world appears to be, believe it or not, France. The so-called left-wing, pro-Palestinian country has convicted upwards of 20 BDS activists for “discrimination” based on “national origin.” Pro-Israel activists are pushing for a similar policy in Belgium. ”

@JeffB
Oh, and I forgot to say, JeffB: the Israel security issue, you defend – the Wall, the occupations, the checkpoints, the total control of water, gas, revenue et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? That is nothing more than the paranoia of theft :(

Only Jewish supremacists and their eager supporters can get away with condemning alleged racism and xenophobia among illegal immigration restrictionists in America, while supporting the notion of a Jewish state that privileges Jewishness, deports immigrants who aren’t Jewish, and that makes interfaith marriage illegal. The Jim Crow South had nothing on Israel.

I’m just going to comment this is a lie. There was a typo. But the context in the post was clear in that it had nothing to do with me personally and was about future intermarriages between Palestinians and Israelis.

by intermarriage is what was obviously implied not my intermarriage.

I’m not sure what Mooser is going on about since as he pointed out already I’m married to a Jew I’m not in an intermarriage.

Brazil’s government has excluded an Israeli “security” company from working at the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro following a campaign by Palestine solidarity activists.

In October 2014, the Israeli firm International Security and Defence Systems (ISDS) announced it had won a $2.2 billion contract with the Brazilian government to coordinate security at the huge sports event. The Times of Israel described the deal as “an unprecedented achievement for Israel,” while senior figures from the company stated it had already begun work.

But on 8 April a division dealing with large events at Brazil’s justice ministry denied that ISDS had been awarded any contract.

A letter from the ministry stated: “Any contract made by Rio 2016 won’t result in compromises by the Brazilian government.” The campaign against ISDS, which was supported by some of Brazil’s labor unions, is interpreting this as an acknowledgement of its grievances.

Julio Turra, executive director of CUT, the largest workers’ union in Brazil, says in a press release: “We are glad that the government distances itself from ISDS. It would be illegal and shameful to hire a company that develops its technologies in complicity with Israeli crimes and that accumulates complaints about its participation in Central American dictatorships.”

This boycott success comes on the heels of another recent and very significant win in Brazil for activists urging boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. At the end of 2014, in response to a separate campaign, the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul canceled a contract with the Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems to develop a major aerospace research center. …

…Large sporting events, like the Olympics and the World Cup, are magnets for military and security firms that are hired to pacify, place under surveillance and remove poor and other “undesirable” segments of the population from the festivities. ISDS is just one of several Israeli and other international companies that have profited from this routine in the past.

Due to Palestine solidarity activists, the company will not be enjoying as much profit as it had hoped to reap in Brazil next year.”

I think the NYT is unintentionally promoting the BDS movement by publishing articles like this. Zionists have been crying wolf about “antisemitism” for so long that it is just boring and, well, bizarre.

It is hard to sympathize with people who flip out about swastikas painted on frat doors (by whom? ), when we are all watching news reports of actual victims of racism being shot in cold blood by Israeli-trained police on our streets. Or looking at still more news photos of Palestinian families sitting on rubble that used to be their homes. Or reading about Israeli “relief” to earthquake victims in Nepal that flew “Israeli” newborns to safety, and left their surrogate mothers in the dust.

It must be getting hard for the U.S. Jews who cling to their civil rights creds from back in the day. No one accepts that this situation is “complicated” any more.

Very few people in New Mexico read the New York Times. The only ones that I know do so are transplants from the coasts, generally rich people that are reliving their hippie years in the desert.
To say that people here don’t care about bds, Israel, or any international stuff would be an understatement. Not caring implies that they think about such things. It’s more like, these things are outside of their sphere of interest, like some stone on a distant planet.

It’s more like, these things are outside of their sphere of interest, like some stone on a distant planet.

how do you know what people read online catalan?

i lived in new mexico for many years, my son was born there and my mom’s from there. there are definitely political people there and a very robust palestinian solidarity movement. NM is home to the stop30billion campaign http://stop30billion.org/ which has now spread all over the country facilitating billboard ad campaigns in major cities. (we’ve written lots of articles about their projects) they also have a very active jvp in albuquerque and sjp at NMU — you’re just wrong, flat out wrong.

“American politicians and Jewish leaders claim to back the two-state solution but enable an Israeli government whose policies are killing it.

I’m sorry to pick on Maryland Senator Ben Cardin. But all accounts he’s a thoughtful, decent man. But no one looks good when defending the indefensible.

Here’s Cardin’s defense of the amendment he’s pushing to require the United States to lobby European governments against boycotting either Israel or Israeli settlements in the West Bank. (The amendment echoes a recent Israeli Supreme Court decision allowing Israelis, inside or outside the Green Line, to sue their boycotters for damages.) “This amendment intends to counter efforts aimed at delegitimizing the state of Israel,” Cardin declared. “Issues, including borders and settlements, need to be resolved in direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.”

Let’s start at the end. Resolving “borders and settlements” via “direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians” is a nice principle. But it’s a principle blatantly violated by Israel’s policy of subsidizing West Bank settlements and thus creating facts on the ground. If Cardin really wants to ensure that borders and settlements are “resolved” via “direct negotiations” rather than unilateral actions by either side, he’ll demand a settlement freeze. I’m not holding my breath.

….. Even if you believe, despite his recent statements to the contrary, that Bibi personally supports a two-state solution, he’s made no effort to get his party or his government to endorse that view. He’s rejected the principle that the 1967 lines, with land swaps, would constitute the border between Israel and a Palestinian state even though that principle has undergirded every serious two-state negotiation in the past. And during the peace talks brokered last year by John Kerry, Barak Ravid reported that Bibi “flatly refused to present a map [of a Palestinian state] or even to discuss the subject theoretically.”

Given that Israel’s new cabinet is dominated by people even more hostile to a Palestinian state than their predecessors, the only way to resolve anything via “direct negotiations” is to make Netanyahu pay a price for entrenching the status quo. I oppose boycotts against all of Israel because they send the message that the Jewish state is illegitimate within any borders. But boycotting companies in the West Bank, or companies that perpetuate Israel’s military control there, is different. Without questioning Israel’s existence, such boycotts make it more costly for Netanyahu to spurn a two-state deal – which offers at least the faint hope that he might negotiate more seriously toward one.

Then there’s the first half of Cardin’s quote: “This amendment intends to counter efforts aimed at delegitimizing the state of Israel.” But boycotting settlements doesn’t “delegitimize” Israel. It “delegitimizes” settlements, which themselves “delegitimize” Israel. Israeli legitimacy, after all, rests on Israeli democracy. Israel’s defenders call it the “only democracy in the Middle East.” They insist there is no contradiction between a country that protects and represents the Jewish people and one that offers basic rights for all people.

Israel’s “delegitimizers” say the opposite: that Zionism and democracy are incompatible. Inside the Green Line, where non-Jews enjoy citizenship, the right to vote and live under a common legal system, Israel’s defenders have a good case. But by occupying and settling the West Bank, Israel plays right into its enemies’ hands. After all, what could be more convenient for people arguing that Zionism and democracy are incompatible than Israeli control of a territory where Palestinians live under a separate legal system than their Jewish neighbors and lack free movement, citizenship and the right to vote for the government that controls their lives?

It’s precisely because Israeli control of the West Bank threatens Israeli democracy that famed Israeli novelists like David Grossman, Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua publicly boycott the settlement of Ariel. And why the head of Israel’s prestigious Weizmann Institute of Science announced in 2012 that he would boycott the university there. One can debate the efficacy of these boycotts, but to call their proponents “delegitimizers” is absurd. To the contrary, men like Grossman, Oz and Yehoshua are refusing to legitimize the settlements precisely in order to legitimize Israel itself.

The most powerful delegitimizers in Washington are those American politicians and Jewish leaders who, while claiming to back the two-state solution, enable an Israeli government whose policies are killing it. “We’ve got to give credit to Netanyahu,” Omar Barghouti, a key leader of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, said at Columbia University in December. “Without him we could not have reached this far, at this time. It could have taken much, much, much, much longer, but with the help of the Israeli government, our biggest closet supporters in the world, we’re going much faster.”

Cardin declared. “Issues, including borders and settlements, need to be resolved in direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.”

I just finished reading Ronan Fanning’s The Fatal Path, about the path to Irish independence in the period 1910-22. That’s just the excuse the British government used for imposing unjust partition on the Irish. Perhaps the Protestants of Northern Ireland had a right to reject incorporation into the nascent Southern Irish state with an overwhelming Catholic majority, but they did not have a right to include in their own Northern Irish state regions with majorities that were Catholic and opposed to Unionism. If the border had been decided on a county level, the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone had such majorities. If it had been decided on a subcounty level, large border regions in the counties of Derry/Londonderry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Armagh, and Down had such majorities. (Those majorities are much more decisive today, when the Catholics in the North are poised to overtake the Protestants in numbers, if they have not already done so.)

The British government told the Irish that the Ulster Protestants would not agree to Irish independence unless they, the Protestants, could rule all six counties of Northern Ireland, and the Irish of the South would either have to take it or leave it. There could be no changes unless the Northern Protestants would agree to them.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.